Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
041012 CC Agenda
In 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 CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET APRIL 10, 2012 — 7:00 PM At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. — The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding three parcels of real properties owned by Front Street Service Station consisting of approximately of 1.194 acres for the Interstate 15/State Route 79 South Ultimate Interchange, Project Number PW04-08. The subject properties are commonly known as 44987 Old Town Front Street, City of Temecula, California, and are identified as Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-201-057, 922-210-058, and 922-210-059. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Front Street Service Station. The City negotiators are Greg Butler and Amer Attar. 2) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency consisting of approximately 30.2 acres (APN 909-370-002) located northwesterly of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for an amendment to the terms of sale of this property are: Wild Rivers, Inc., the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale of the property to Wild Rivers, Inc. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. Next in Order: Ordinance: 12-04 Resolution: 12-27 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chuck Washington Prelude Music: Temecula Valley Children's Chorus Invocation: Bishop Glenn Frazier of Beracah Faith Ministries International Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Naggar ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation Mental Health Month Proclamation Presentation of Art Donation — Bronze Statue in memory of Bruce Beers PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the City Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the City Council on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the City Council addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, 10 minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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 City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 2 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of March 27, 2012. 3 List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012. 5 Reallocation of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize transfer of $295,531 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 131 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project; 5.2 Authorize transfer of $9,442 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 210 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project. 6 Indemnity Agreement for Southern California Edison Triton Substation Project, PRO9-0011 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Southern California Edison (SCE) Indemnity Agreement for SCE's Triton Substation project, PRO9-0011. 7 Quitclaim Deeds granting five Drainage Easements for the Wolf Valley Storm Drain Improvements to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) — Tract Map No. 23065 (Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 3 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION MADE ON TRACT MAP NO. 23065 AND BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) FIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE WOLF VALLEY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM (TRACT MAP NO. 23065) 8 Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for Old Town Infrastructure (Town Square, Mercedes and Main Street Improvements), PW06-07 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Accept the subject project as complete; 8.2 Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond 35 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion; 8.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. 9 Award of a Construction Contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Award a construction contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $3,476,502.55; 9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $347,650.26, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 9.3 Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation — Margarita Road Project 2 is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 4 10 1st Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party — Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events (at the request of Mayor Washington) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $7,500 for Fiscal Year 2011- 12 for event costs to include rentals of tables/chairs and entertainment for the 1st Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party - Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events on June 9, 2012; 10.2 Approve city -support costs for the event in the amount of $1,000; 10.3 Authorize that all proceeds from the event be awarded to the Temecula Rotary Club Military Project which is a program that provides support and social services to military personnel and their families who reside in Temecula. ******************** RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ******************** 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 12-01 Resolution: No. CSD 12-02 CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three minutes. If the speaker chooses to address the Board of Directors on an item listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. Once the speaker is called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or District Business items on the agenda, a Request to Speak form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. Each speaker is limited to five minutes. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC 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 Temecula Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 11 Action Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Approve the action minutes of March 27, 2012. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 6 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY — no meeting TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY — no meeting TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY — no meeting 7 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) 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 City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 12 Draft 2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan which includes the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2012-13 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN (2012-2016) AND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (2012-2013) AS AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 13 Appointment of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee for the Inclusive Play Structure Project (at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Appoint two individuals to serve as the Inclusive Play Structure Ad Hoc Subcommittee. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 24, 2012, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 8 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The agenda packet (including staff reports) will be available for viewing in the Main Reception area at the Temecula Civic Center (41000 Main Street, Temecula) after 4:00 PM the Friday before the City Council meeting. At that time, the packet may also be accessed on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orq Supplemental material received after the posting of the Agenda Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the City Council 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 AM — 5:00 PM). In addition, such material will be made available on the City's website — www.cityoftemecula.orcl— and will be available for public review at the respective meeting. If you have any questions regarding any item of business on the Agenda for this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Department, (951) 694-6444. 9 PRESENTATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, children deserve a safe, stable, and permanent home in order to become productive members of our society; and WHEREAS, child abuse is found in families of all social and economic classes, and every racial and ethnic group; and WHEREAS, child abuse impacts the entire community and finding solutions depends on community involvement to nurture family growth and inspire future generations; and WHEREAS, effective child abuse prevention programs succeed because of partnerships created among social service agencies, schools, religious organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the business community; and WHEREAS, through the continued work of volunteers, parents, community partners, policy makers, and professionals, child abuse may be eradicated, giving our children a bright, successful future; and WHEREAS, Prevent Child Abuse Riverside County works in collaboration with the Department of Public Social Services to educate the public to reduce the incidence of child abuse and provide other services to help alleviate its effects; and WHEREAS, all citizens should become more aware of child abuse and its prevention within the community and become more involved in supporting parents to raise their children in a safe, nurturing environment. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Chuck Washington, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim the month of April, 2012 to be "Child Abuse Prevention Month" and urge all residents to become more aware of this Nationwide problem and to take necessary action to prevent child abuse in their communities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this tenth day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk The City of Temecula PROCLAMA TION WHEREAS, mental illness can impact anyone, regardless of age, background, employment, education, and income level; and WHEREAS, many treatments for serious mental illnesses, in combination with treatment and recovery supports, are highly effective, allowing people to maintain their quality of life and their involvement with their families and communities; and WHEREAS, the National Institute of Mental Health reports that one in four adults — approximately 57.7 million Americans — experience a mental health disorder in a given year and that half of all Americans experience a mental disorder at some time in their lives; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General reports that 10 percent of children and adolescents in the United States suffer from serious emotional and mental disorders that cause significant functional impairment; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Mental Health Board is presenting "Live Life Well", a mental health fair on May 17, 2012, at Fairmont Park in Riverside, in support of the May is Mental Health Month observance; and WHEREAS, encouraging awareness of mental health issues and promoting wellness and recovery for those with mental health needs are important values for every community. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Chuck Washington, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim the month of May, 2012, to be "Mental Health Month" to signify its support of greater awareness of mental health issues and joins with the Riverside County Mental Health Board in its observance of May is Mental Health Month. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this tenth day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk CONSENT CALENDAR Item No. 1 Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET MARCH 27, 2012 — 7:00 PM 6:15 P.M. — The City Council will convene in Closed Session in the Canyons Conference Room on the third floor of the Temecula City Hall concerning the following matters: 1) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by Donald Fischer consisting of approximately 10.96 acres (APN 940-300-026) located on the escarpment west of the City limits in unincorporated Riverside County. The parties to the negotiations for the purchase of the property are the Donald Fischer, Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are price and the terms of the City and Authority's purchase of the property. 2) Conference with real property negotiators pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding one parcel of real property owned by the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency consisting of approximately 30.2 acres (APN 909-370-002) located northwesterly of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway. The parties to the negotiations for an amendment to the terms of sale of this property are: Agua Caliente Inc., the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and the City of Temecula. Negotiators for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency and City of Temecula are: Bob Johnson, Patrick Richardson, and Luke Watson. Under negotiation are the price and terms of the sale of the property to Agua Caliente Inc. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. At 6:15 P.M., Mayor Washington called the City Council meeting to order and recessed to Closed Session to consider the matters described on the Closed Session agenda. The City Council meeting convened at 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chuck Washington Prelude Music: Bret Paddock Invocation: Associate Pastor Felicia Brown of Imani Temple of Temecula Church of God in Christ Flag Salute: Council Member Edwards Action Agenda 032712 1 ROLL CALL: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Assistance League — Certificate of Appreciation for Operation School Bell Temecula Target — Certificate of Appreciation for Holiday Helpers Shopping Day Certificate of Commendation for Josiah Bierle PUBLIC COMMENTS The following individuals addressed the City Council: Evelyn Honea Sharon Matus Mark Katan Kathryn Kreh CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Action Minutes - Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected approval, with Council Members Naggar and Roberts abstaining. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the action minutes of March 13, 2012. 3 List of Demands- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: Action Agenda 032712 2 RESOLUTION NO. 12-25 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4 Spending Authorization for Debt Service and Shelter Costs payable to Southwest Communities Financing Authority for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and Fiscal Year 2012 -13 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve the additional expenditure for Fiscal Year 2011-12 payable to Southwest Communities Financing Authority(SCFA)/County of Riverside for debt service in the amount of $1,876 for a total debt service payment of $44,263; 4.2 Approve the expenditure for Fiscal Year 2012-13 payable to Southwest Communities Financing Authority/County of Riverside for animal shelter operation costs and debt service in the amount of $343,035; 4.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional sheltering and debt service costs to SCFA/County of Riverside in the amount of $15,000. 5 Support for Senate Bill 986, Senate Bill 654, Assembly Bill 1585 and all other future Senate and Assembly Bills that intend to clarify and cleanup Assembly Bill ABX1 26 - Approved Staff Recommendation — as amended taking out language regarding approval of any future legislation clarifying ABX/ 26 (5-0-0) Council Member Comerchero made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF SB 986, SB 654, AB 1585 AND ALL FUTURE LEGISLATION CLARIFYING ABX/ 26 6 Agreement for Weed Abatement Services with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2011-12 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Approve an annual agreement with Inland Empire Property Services, Inc., to provide Weed Abatement Services for Fiscal Year 2011-12 in the amount of $40,000. Action Agenda 032712 3 7 Agreement for consulting services between the City of Temecula and Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bella Linda residential project - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve an agreement for consulting services between the City of Temecula and Environmental Science Associates (ESA) for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in the amount of $249,580 for the Bella Linda residential project, located at the northeast corner of Pechanga Parkway and Loma Linda Road. 8 City of Temecula Partnership with County of Riverside to provide space for Mobile Medical Unit in the Mary Phillips Senior Center -Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve the agreement between the County of Riverside and City of Temecula for the provision of space for a Mobile Medical Unit at the Mary Phillips Senior Center approved by the County of Riverside. 9 Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with KRW & Associates for Engineering Plan Check, Map, and Legal Description Review for Fiscal Year 2012-13 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Approve a Fourth Amendment to the Agreement with KRW & Associates in the amount of $15,000 for Engineering Plan Check, Map, and Legal Description Review for Fiscal Year 2012-13. Action Agenda 032712 4 10 Construction Contract for the French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I, PW07-04- Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Naggar made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Comerchero; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: Principal Engineer Amer Attar Presented the Staff Report. The following speakers presented public comments: Lindsay Walton Stephen Walton 10.1 Accelerate the appropriation and funding in the amount of $200,000 from the construction line item for the French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I, PW07-04, from Fiscal Year 2012-13 to Fiscal Year 2011-12; 10.2 Award a construction contract for the French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I, PW07-04, to Flatiron West, Inc. in the amount of $13,780,137.50; 10.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the contract amount, $1,378,013.75; 10.4 Make a finding that the French Valley Parkway/Interstate 15 Overcrossing and Interchange Improvements — Phase I project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. 11 Agreement for Environmental Consulting Services for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, PW00-26 - Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0-0) Council Member Edwards made the motion; it was seconded by Council Member Roberts; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval. RECOMMENDATION: Approve an agreement for environmental consulting services for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, PW00-26 with Bonterra Consulting in the amount of $135,010; 11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve extra work authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $13,501 which is equal to 10% of the total agreement amount. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS 14 Planning Department Monthly Report Action Agenda 032712 5 15 Public Works Department Monthly Report 16 Economic Development Department Monthly Report 17 City Council Travel/Conference Report - February 2012 18 Police Department Monthly Report CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Thorson reported there was no reportable action from Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT At 8:58 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 5:30 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] Action Agenda 032712 6 Item No. 3 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ar CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Wilson, Director of Finance DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pascale Brown, Accounting Manager Leah Thomas, Accounting Specialist RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $2,361,312.63. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of April 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of April 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 03/15/2012 TOTAL CHECK RUN $ 1,521,472.41 03/22/2012 TOTAL CHECK RUN 436,664.00 03/15/2012 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 403,176.22 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04/10/2012 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 2,361,312.63 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND 130 RECOVERY ACT JAG FUNDING 150 AB 2766 FUND 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 370 CITY 2008 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT $ 616,254.61 4,092.96 1,636.10 19,524.23 317,287.01 76,504.08 1,243.21 10,269.14 7,023.95 392,480.21 5,800.00 363,479.85 27,824.79 3,750.57 16,943.19 2,500.00 2,500.00 154A7 184.78 263.75 86.16 419.19 569.23 593.01 883.97 101.34 56.50 72.00 320.76 531.90 366.54 59.28 338.86 37.84 1,291.26 345.92 44,780.07 2,559.31 64.34 102.01 31,093.46 430.93 26.69 131.19 3,105.02 52.73 $ 1,958,136.41 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 300 INSURANCE FUND 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 340 FACILITIES 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT $ 239,184.51 12,003.75 105,291.73 374.13 1,637.60 1,025.11 1,273.32 1,377.68 19,252.79 7,114.56 12,332.51 84.91 56.90 67.44 12.35 137.00 24.91 35.14 232.67 1.82 10.54 6.38 155.17 33.00 18.98 16.68 38.77 3.16 143.81 76.90 208.42 352.98 8.74 9.28 198.47 64.11 2.86 9.28 292.68 5.18 403,176.22 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 2,361,312.63 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 1889 03/15/2012 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 8,096.40 8,096.40 RETIREMENT) 1890 03/15/2012 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 75,442.55 75,442.55 1891 03/15/2012 001065 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 11,210.47 11,21047 SOLUTION 1892 03/15/2012 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) State Disability Ins Payment 21,620.00 21,620.00 1893 03/15/2012 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 131,186.96 131,186.96 RETIREMENT) 1894 03/15/2012 000389 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT OBRA- Project Retirement Payment 2,675.40 2,675.40 SOLUTION 1895 03/15/2012 010349 CALIF DEPT OF CHILD Support Payment 738.45 738.45 SUPPORT 150835 03/15/2012 008552 ADKINS DESIGN CONSULTING Feb graphic design svcs:Theater 3,512.77 Jan graphic design svcs:Theater 1,001.11 4,513.88 150836 03/15/2012 012943 ALPHA MECHANICAL SERVICE hvac repairsvc: crc 343.56 343.56 INC 150837 03/15/2012 004422 AMERICAN BATTERY signal batteries: pw traffic 274.96 274.96 CORPORATION 150838 03/15/2012 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI & drug screenings: Police 974.74 (AFN) 150839 03/15/2012 004623 AQUA SOURCE INC 150840 03/15/2012 008314 AQUATIC DESIGN GROUP 150841 03/15/2012 014451 ARCHITECTURAL SIGN IDENTITY Apr Stand By Fee: Police DUI & drug screenings: Police test reagents: aquatics waterslide rehab: crc pool wall of honor signage: civic ctr 1,248.00 381.42 2,604.16 166.93 166.93 515.26 515.26 1,668.63 1,668.63 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 150842 03/15/2012 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 150843 03/15/2012 012938 B & T WORKS INC 150844 03/15/2012 011438 BAKER, BLYTHE EDEN 150845 03/15/2012 011007 BARNETT, KIRK 150846 03/15/2012 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS 150847 03/15/2012 014329 BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC 150848 03/15/2012 014299 BOOKS ON TAPE Description Amount Paid Check Total Bottled wtr svcs: VRMS 44.30 BOTTLED WTR SVCS: PBSP 35.25 BOTTLED W1-1:4 SVCS: TES AQUATICS 645 Bottled wtr svcs: Fld Op Ctr 145.80 Bottled wtr svcs: Ch Museum 35.68 Bottled wtr svcs: TCC 31.69 Bottled wtr svcs: Library 78.80 BOTTLED W1-1:4 SVCS: CHS AQUATICS 645 Bottled wtr svcs: Theater 31.69 Bottled wtr svcs: TV Museum 18.66 Bottled wtr svcs: CRC 63.77 498.54 concrete repair:win rd medians 4,000.00 4,000.00 High Hopes Winter Dance/Choir 180.00 180.00 reimb: misc supplies Stn 84 294.13 294.13 TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings (2) BOOKS: LIBRARY (2) BOOKS: LIBRARY (4) BOOKS: LIBRARY (2) BOOKS: LIBRARY (5) BOOKS: LIBRARY (20) BOOKS: LIBRARY (6) BOOKS: LIBRARY (1) book on tape: library (1) book on tape: library (1) book on tape: library 150849 03/15/2012 014433 BOWCON COMPANY, INC Feb const:ped/bicycle bridge 637.00 840.00 1,477.00 34.26 49.25 67.75 27.77 75.26 343.90 112.79 80.81 32.33 36.37 710.98 149.51 195,574.61 195,574.61 150850 03/15/2012 000128 BROWN & BROWN INSURANCE Ins 314781AF1 Empire DIC 249,706.57 Ins 6304168X28A Travelers Grp 110,708.00 360,414.57 150851 03/15/2012 014210 BROWNE, BORTZ & Jan cnslt svcs: RDA 8,100.00 8,100.00 CODDINGTON INC 150852 03/15/2012 014089 BRYANT, TIM Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 400.00 400.00 150853 03/15/2012 014718 BURT, KRISTA, A. TCSD Instructor Eamings 192.50 192.50 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 150854 03/15/2012 004462 C D W GOVERNMENT INC 150855 03/15/2012 012878 C S OFFICE INTERIORS 150856 03/15/2012 003138 CAL MAT Description Amount Paid Check Total HP 4GB computer: TCSD 1,034.25 (6) meraki outdoor clouds: Info Tech ergonomic keyboard: cm 1,292.42 2,326.67 235.20 235.20 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 452.30 PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 150857 03/15/2012 004248 CALIF DEPT OF DUI & drug screenings: police JUSTICE-ACCTING 150858 03/15/2012 004896 CAPLINGER, DENNIS F. Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 150859 03/15/2012 006114 CASEY, MARGIE reimbursement: hard drive laptop 150860 03/15/2012 009640 CERTIFION CORPORATION Feb database subscr: police 150861 03/15/2012 000137 CHEVRON AND TEXACO City vehicles fuel: Police 150862 03/15/2012 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH Community Health Charities Payment CHARITIES 150863 03/15/2012 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS alarm access repair svc: theater 150864 03/15/2012 014722 CONDRY, MIKE reimb:photography supp high hopes 150865 03/15/2012 013286 CONN EXON TELECOM INC Feb Enterprise 911 svc: IT 150866 03/15/2012 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL misc supplies: tcsd maint DIST. 150867 03/15/2012 012353 CONSTRUCTION TESTING report rec'd for hrs worked inv 17859 150868 03/15/2012 014521 COSTAR GROUP Feb -Mar dbase subscr:eco dev INFORMATION, INC 150869 03/15/2012 013379 COUSSOU, CELINE 150870 03/15/2012 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC TCSD Instructor Eamings TCSD Instructor Eamings plumbing svcs: Stn 84 80.55 532.85 70.00 70.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 67.99 67.99 150.00 150.00 2,115.90 2,115.90 51.00 51.00 322.72 322.72 73.25 73.25 360.00 360.00 323.25 323.25 288.00 288.00 696.00 696.00 122.50 315.00 437.50 147.81 147.81 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150871 03/15/2012 014713 DAN CRARYTHUNDERATION, Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival INC. 150872 03/15/2012 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Feb legislative cnslt svcs: CM 150873 03/15/2012 007057 DERN BACH, ESTHER MARIE TCSD instructor earnings TCSD instructor earnings 150874 03/15/2012 013230 DEUTSCHE BANK NATL TRUST CFD 88-12 reimbursement 08/09 CO 150875 03/15/2012 003412 DIAZ, AUSENCIO CFD 88-12 reimbursement 05/06 CFD 88-12 reimbursement 04/05 CFD 88-12 reimbursement 02/03 CFD 88-12 reimbursement 01/02 CFD 88-12 reimbursement 03/04 150876 03/15/2012 005508 DOUGHTY, LINDA S. CFD 88-12 reimbursement 05/06 150877 03/15/2012 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING INC 4,500.00 4,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 682.50 577.50 1,260.00 201.58 201.58 183.86 214.96 192.48 185.46 192.16 968.92 183.86 183.86 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD MPSC 154.45 Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD Fuel for City vehicles: TCSD 124.00 2,122.16 2,400.61 150878 03/15/2012 006834 DURAN, JOSE EDUARDO CFD 88-12 reimbursement 05/06 705.86 CFD 88-12 reimbursement 04/05 646.45 1,352.31 150879 03/15/2012 002283 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL every 15 min pgmi:rooms/rfrshmnts 2,534.00 2,534.00 150880 03/15/2012 011202 EMH SPORTS & FITNESS INSTITUTE TCSD instructor earnings 77.00 TCSD instructor earnings 136.50 TCSD instructor earnings 168.00 381.50 150881 03/15/2012 003665 EXCEL COMMERCIAL Feb long distance phone svcs 55.11 55.11 150882 03/15/2012 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE irrigation repairs: temeku hills slopes 354.22 354.22 Page4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 150883 03/15/2012 003347 000871 005786 014662 014662 014583 000175 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER HILTON SPRINT CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES CARDIOLOGY ASSOCIATES PALUMBO'S RISTORANTE, LLC GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 006952 001590 006937 006937 014723 014723 008326 150884 03/15/2012 002982 PAYPAL CALIF REDEVELOPMENT ASSN SOUTHWEST AIRLINES SOUTHWEST AIRLINES WALT DISNEY WORLD SWAN WALT DISNEY WORLD SWAN AVIS RENT -A -CAR FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 150885 03/15/2012 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS 150886 03/15/2012 010270 GATES, ANDREW JODY (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total RR htl:SCAG mtg 2/2 LA RR cell phone holder GY required emp medical testing:HR GY required emp medical testing:HR GY lunch:interview panel th mgr GW '11 cert/achievement review GW regist:bud/fiscal plcy 2/8-9 HS GW Verisign Payflow Pro Transaction GW regist:agency trn 3/7 PB/RG GY airfare:JAG grant trn TS/CB GY airfare:JAG grant trn TS/CB GY htl:JAG grant tm TS/CB GY htl:JAG grant tm TS/CB GY car rent:JAG grant trn TS/CB SUPPORT PAYMENT MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER retumed goods: connectors MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER retumed goods: clip on condensers retumed goods: headphone protectors MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 150887 03/15/2012 014067 GENTRY, JANN cd images Lt. Dan Band 3/1/12 166.00 30.16 495.00 283.00 72.03 580.00 85.00 109.45 390.00 1,031.20 1,031.20 138.38 138.38 270.00 100.00 47.36 35.91 61.56 126.00 12.97 88.29 -312.96 153.56 253.46 20.09 73.15 237.00 -544.92 -188.22 159.53 700.00 4,819.80 100.00 222.78 700.00 400.00 400.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150888 03/15/2012 012066 GEOCON WEST, INC 1/23-2/19 geotech svc:roripaugh mch 8,017.50 8,017.50 150889 03/15/2012 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC sttlmnt: Heart & Soul 3/10 1,648.64 1,648.64 SOCIETY 150890 03/15/2012 014696 GRISWOLD, BRAD L. entertainment:Bluegrass Festival 1,800.00 1,800.00 150891 03/15/2012 000520 HDL COREN & CONE INC Jan -Mar cnslt svc:property tax 5,250.00 5,250.00 150892 03/15/2012 001517 HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE FEB EAP SVCS: HUMAN RESOURCES 668.80 CTR MAR EAP SVCS: HUMAN RESOURCES 664.40 1,333.20 150893 03/15/2012 001135 HEALTH POINTE MEDICAL emp industrial care svcs: HR 70.00 70.00 GROUP INC 150894 03/15/2012 002126 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE maint supplies: crc gym floor 209.09 209.09 SUPPLY 150895 03/15/2012 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT -PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 7,357.76 7,357.76 303355 150896 03/15/2012 014387 KASA CONSTRUCTION, INC release retention: PW10-04 23,029.99 23,029.99 150897 03/15/2012 000209 L & M FERTILIZER INC misc parts/supplies: pw maint 66.29 66.29 150898 03/15/2012 000210 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES '12 LCC city membership 100.00 100.00 150899 03/15/2012 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC Jan geotech svc:winchester rd 1,521.30 1,521.30 150900 03/15/2012 003726 LIFE ASSIST INC medical supplies: Paramedics 112.59 medical supplies: Paramedics 200.77 medical supplies: Paramedics 181.36 494.72 150901 03/15/2012 013769 LIGHTSQUARED LP FEB SATTELITE PHONE SVC: FIRE/CM 155.67 155.67 150902 03/15/2012 009904 LIVING DESERT, THE excursion 3/20: MPSC 283.50 283.50 150903 03/15/2012 014630 MCDONALD'S refund sec deposit-rm rental/crc 150.00 150.00 150904 03/15/2012 014463 MCLAUGHLIN, SUSAN LYNN ee memorial fund balance 765.00 765.00 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150905 03/15/2012 003752 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY Vehicle supplies: Sta 84 COMPANY 150906 03/15/2012 014352 MICHAEL L KENNEY Jan -Feb traffic sgnl timing srvcs:pw ENGINEERING 114.40 114.40 1,050.00 1,050.00 150907 03/15/2012 005887 MOFFATT & NICHOL JAN CONSULTING:FRENCH VLY/I-15 8,955.40 ENGINEERS OVERCROSS 1/29-2/25 ENG SRVCS:FRENCH VLY PKV 15,855.21 150908 03/15/2012 012787 MOREHOUSE, JACK W. Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival '12 250.00 150909 03/15/2012 014704 MURPHY, JAMES EDWARD Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival '12 300.00 150910 03/15/2012 000915 NATIONAL NOTARY 4 yr renewal notary ins: S. Jones 51.00 ASSOCIATION 150911 03/15/2012 008820 NEIGHBORS NEWSPAPER Mar advertising:Bluegrass Festival 2012 250.00 150912 03/15/2012 009337 NOLTE ASSOCIATES INC Jan eng srvcs:ped bridge 104.50 150913 03/15/2012 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Feb newspaper subscr:MPSC 27.30 150914 03/15/2012 014720 ODER, MONICA refund:sec dep bal:minus late chg:harv. 138.00 150915 03/15/2012 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:Fire Prev 36.29 DIV Misc office supplies:pd old town office 154.66 Misc office supplies:public works 26.26 Printing srvcs:b&s dept 59.26 150916 03/15/2012 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAINT 107.73 24,810.61 250.00 300.00 51.00 250.00 104.50 27.30 138.00 276.47 107.73 150917 03/15/2012 009294 PACHECO, DAVID ERNESTO CFD 88-12 reimbursement fy 05/06 183.86 CFD 88-12 reimbursement fy 03/04 192.16 CFD 88-12 reimbursement fy 02/03 192.48 568.50 150918 03/15/2012 010338 POOL & ELECTRICAL Pool supplies & chemicals:citywide 67.46 67.46 PRODUCTS INC 150919 03/15/2012 011549 POWER SPORTS UNLIMITED Veh repair & maint:police 150920 03/15/2012 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY FEB UNIFORM/FLR MAT/TWL RENTALS:CSD/CIVI Feb uniform/Or mat/twl rental:citywide Credit:billing adjftcsd maint 495.78 495.78 542.03 933.26 -44.85 1,430.44 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 150921 03/15/2012 004529 QUAID TEMECULA HARLEY-DAVIDSON 150922 03/15/2012 002612 RADIO SHACK INC 150923 03/15/2012 007051 RALPHS 150924 03/15/2012 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 150925 03/15/2012 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Description Amount Paid Check Total VEH REPAIR & MAINT:POLICE 716.72 716.72 Misc supplies:info tech 62.47 62.47 gift cards for teen egg hunt 3/30/12 900.00 900.00 Feb meter:01-06-99000-14 28640 Pujol 9.57 Feb var water meters:TCSD svc lev C Feb dc meter:28870,28880,28910 Pujol Feb var water meters:TCSD Fac Feb Reclaimed-Lscp:Wolf crk dr N Feb var water meters: Fire Stns Feb var water meters:TCSD & PW Feb Floating meter- comm:PW 16,339.65 19.13 3,550.91 175.41 636.62 1,682.46 196.11 Reprographic srvcs:butterfield ext 58.87 Reproduction srvcs:library prkg 150926 03/15/2012 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR Feb veh detailing srvcs:pw dept/police WASH 150927 03/15/2012 014688 RANDALL J BABBITT regist:big rig extrication tm 5/14-16 150928 03/15/2012 009725 RAZAVI, MANDIS TCSD Instructor Eamings 150929 03/15/2012 000271 RBF CONSULTING Sep centerline monuments:Wnchstr Rd JAN ENG SRVCS:I-15/79S ULT. INTRCHG 150930 03/15/2012 002110 RENTAL SERVICE equipment rental: various parks CORPORATION 150931 03/15/2012 014721 RICHTER, KRISTINE refund:sec dep:rm rental:TCC 150932 03/15/2012 014693 RILEY, MARY ELIZABETH TCSD Instructor Eamings 150933 03/15/2012 000352 RIVERSIDE CO ASSESSOR Feb assessor maps: B&S Dept 150934 03/15/2012 009303 ROEDER RUZNAK, ANDREA D. CFD 88-12 reimbursement fy 05/06 150935 03/15/2012 009196 SACRAMENTO THEATRICAL Misc lighting supplies: Theater LIGHTING 22,609.86 10.78 69.65 42.00 42.00 1,425.00 1,425.00 548.80 548.80 8,295.00 2,200.00 10,495.00 692.33 692.33 150.00 150.00 227.50 227.50 18.00 18.00 183.86 183.86 171.80 171.80 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150936 03/15/2012 005329 SAFE ALTERNATIVE FOR Council community service funding EVERYONE 150937 03/15/2012 008529 SHERIFFS CIVIL DIV- SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTRAL 150938 03/15/2012 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Jazz © the Merc 3/8 150939 03/15/2012 009746 SIGNS BYTOMORROW banner date patch:citywide clean-up PUBLIC NTC POSTINGXX-0238: PLANN If 150940 03/15/2012 004460 SILVERADO BLUEGRASS BAND Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival '12 150941 03/15/2012 000645 SMART & FINAL INC MISC SUPPLIES:MPSC Misc supplies:recreation program Misc supplies:art show receptions 150942 03/15/2012 004729 SMITH, GREGORY M. CFD 88-12 reimbursement fy 03/04 150943 03/15/2012 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 150944 03/15/2012 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 150945 03/15/2012 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS TRANSCRIPTION 150946 03/15/2012 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS 1,000.00 100.00 1,000.00 100.00 513.00 513.00 48.96 296.20 2,000.00 158.56 329.79 216.52 683.21 345.16 2,000.00 704.87 683.21 Feb 2-30-608-9384:28582 Harveston 603.16 Feb 2-25-350-5119:45602 Redhawk 24.36 Feb 2-28-171-2620:40820 Winchester 659.79 Feb 2-10-331-2153:28816 Pujol St 629.44 Feb 2-29-479-2981:31454 Tem pkwy TC1 113.18 Feb 2-05-791-8807:31587 Tem pkwy LS3 10,567.16 Feb 2-29-974-7899:26953 Ynez LS -3 212.10 Mar 2-01-202-7330:var LS -1 Allnite 76,201.52 Feb 2-01-202-7603:var LS -1 Allnite 27,862.82 Feb 2-31-419-2659:26706 Ynez TC1 8348 Feb 2-30-066-2889:30051 Rancho vista 24.48 Feb 2-29-657-2563:42902 Butterfield 188.58 Mar 2-33-777-1950:40135 Village rd 241.10 Feb 2-20-798-3248:42081 Main St 771.06 Feb 2-02-351-5281:30875 Rancho vista 3,565.86 121,748.09 Pest control srvcs:fire station 84 80.00 Feb pest control srvcs:citywide 748.00 828.00 Feb transcription srvcs:Police 629.44 629.44 install window film: crc 19,111.50 19,111.50 150947 03/15/2012 003840 STRONGS PAINTING painting srvcs: library parking lot 1,200.00 1,200.00 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150948 03/15/2012 007273 STUMPS PRINTING COMPANY Decorations:Breakfastw/Santa 12/10 INC 150949 03/15/2012 006138 SWAN HOTEL ASSOCIATES school safety cfscanlon/bowers 7/23-27 150950 03/15/2012 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD Misc supplies:C.Museum SRVCS Misc supplies:crc Misc supplies:F.I.T. pgrm Misc supplies:harveston center Misc supplies:childrens museum Misc supplies:recreation pgrm Misc supplies:high hopes pgrm 150951 03/15/2012 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES:CSD C/O MAINT 150952 03/15/2012 010679 TEMECULA AUTO Veh repair & maint:fre prevention REPAIR/RADIATOR 150953 03/15/2012 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Feb sunshine fund 150954 03/15/2012 009194 TEMECULA VALLEY NEWS Feb advertising: Temecula Presents 150955 03/15/2012 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & Misc supplies:csd maint SUPPLY 150956 03/15/2012 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Mar high speed internet:32364 Ovedand 150957 03/15/2012 014689 TOTH, STEPHEN F. entertainment:bluegrass festival' 12 150958 03/15/2012 005460 U S BANK TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES:2001 COP 150959 03/15/2012 014413 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 150960 03/15/2012 014709 ULLICO 150961 03/15/2012 007766 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 150962 03/15/2012 000325 UNITED WAY TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES:2008 COP 304.32 304.32 1,483.80 1,483.80 2.32 225.64 14.97 198.42 70.87 53.00 132.88 698.10 78.36 78.36 273.97 273.97 251.96 251.96 286.40 286.40 9.85 9.85 44.95 44.95 250.00 250.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 SUPPORT PAYMENT 147.35 147.35 Settlement agrmnt pmt:Wnchstr Rd 82,479.17 82,479.17 Feb undrgrnd svcs alert tickets:PW 153.00 153.00 United Way Charities Payment 51.00 51.00 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 150963 03/15/2012 004789 VERIZON 150964 03/15/2012 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC 150965 03/15/2012 013647 VICAR OPERATING, INC. Description Amount Paid Check Total Mar Internet svcs:Th eater Mar SW DSL:PD:Jones, C. Mar Internet svcs:30600 Pauba Rd 134.99 39.95 0.08 175.02 Feb long distance phone svcs 4.31 Feb long distance phone svcs 12.59 16.90 VETERINARYSRVCS:POLICE K-9 UNIT 73.21 73.21 150966 03/15/2012 010399 VOLKER LUTZ ENTERPRISE Refreshments:Twin Cities mtg 3/14 INC 150967 03/15/2012 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC custodial & recycling supplies:civic ctr 150968 03/15/2012 003730 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC 2/1-15 tree trim/removal srvcs:crowne 2/1-15 tree trimming services: var. 2/1-15 tree trimming srvcs: harveston 334.03 334.03 81.89 81.89 15,993.00 8,085.00 29,971.00 54,049.00 150969 03/15/2012 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE Feb '12 TUMF Payment 195,803.00 195,803.00 COUNCIL OF 150970 03/15/2012 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIDE Feb '12 MSHCP payment 39,168.00 39,168.00 COUNTY 150971 03/15/2012 014712 WIMBERLEY, BRENT D. Entertainment:Bluegrass Festival '12 400.00 400.00 150972 03/15/2012 014714 XYLEM DESIGN, INC pedestal stand for donated public art 725.74 725.74 150973 03/15/2012 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL Reimb:Team PACE 3/15 480.00 480.00 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 1,521,472.41 Pagel 1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 03/15/2012 3:32:07PM CITY OF TEMECULA 146 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks. 1,521,472.41 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 150974 03/22/2012 013367 ACTIVE MICRO INC misc supplies: aquatics 10.94 misc supplies: aquatics 16.91 27.85 150975 03/22/2012 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL Feb training: PD K -9s Rudy/Astin 283.34 283.34 INC 150976 03/22/2012 014733 AGRICOMM refund:sec dep/mi rental:TCC 360.00 360.00 150977 03/22/2012 011322 AIR CLEANING SYSTEMS INC plymovent service: Stn 84 218.26 218.26 150978 03/22/2012 009374 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES piano tuning: library 170.00 170.00 150979 03/22/2012 012943 ALPHA MECHANICAL SERVICE HVAC REPAIR: STN 92 1,959.41 1,959.41 INC 150980 03/22/2012 013015 ALWAYS RELIABLE backflow testing: Stn 92 50.00 BACKFLOW backflow testing: old town/tcc 75.00 backflow testing: various slopes 2,325.00 backflow testing: various medians 75.00 2,525.00 150981 03/22/2012 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI & drug screenings: Police 381.42 (AFN) DUI & drug screenings: Police 466.18 847.60 150982 03/22/2012 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE Dec animal control services 10,000.00 10,000.00 VALLEYS 150983 03/22/2012 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC Bottled wtrsvcs: Council 38.79 Bottled wtr Svcs: MPSC 184.43 223.22 150984 03/22/2012 003376 ARTS COUNCIL, THE '12 sponsorship:street painting fest 8,500.00 8,500.00 150985 03/22/2012 011961 AT&T MOBILITY Feb Trip wire:graffitti:Police 136.94 136.94 150986 03/22/2012 007065 B & H PHOTO VIDEO INC misc av room equip: info tech 857.18 857.18 150987 03/22/2012 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS TCSD instructor earnings 52.50 52.50 150988 03/22/2012 012583 BLANCA Y PRICE Feb landscape insp: Planning 5,750.00 5,750.00 150989 03/22/2012 008605 BONTERRA CONSULTING 1/14-2/10 CNSLT SVCS:RRSP BASIN 873.85 873.85 Pagel apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 150990 03/22/2012 014329 BOOK WHOLESALERS, INC (2) BOOKS: LIBRARY (13) BOOKS: LIBRARY (10) BOOKS: LIBRARY (17) BOOKS: LIBRARY 150991 03/22/2012 014299 BOOKS ON TAPE (1) BOOK ON TAPE LIBRARY 150992 03/22/2012 009082 C B C TECHNICAL INC LIGHTING EQUIP RENTAL: THEATER LIGHTING EQUIP RENTAL: THEATEF MISC TECH SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC TECH SUPPLIES: THEATER Amount Paid Check Total 31.61 261.63 162.88 312.20 768.32 36.37 36.37 120.00 40.00 235.16 117.13 150993 03/22/2012 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY helium tank refills: recreation 101.74 512.29 helium tank refills: recreation 101.74 203.48 150994 03/22/2012 014735 CANNON, STEPHANIE refund:preschool gymnastics 1723.103 76.00 76.00 150995 03/22/2012 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY Feb liability claims mgmt svc:finance 2,163.53 2,163.53 INC 150996 03/22/2012 003997 COAST RECREATION INC playground parts:harveston lake park 839.48 839.48 150997 03/22/2012 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Mar -Jun alarm svcs: citywide 5,325.00 5,325.00 150998 03/22/2012 000447 COMTRONIX RADIOS: PUBLIC WORKS 2,700.85 2,700.85 COMMUNICATIONS 150999 03/22/2012 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL misc electrical supplies: Ch Museum 60.61 DIST. 151000 03/22/2012 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE misc electrical supplies: Old Town electrical supplies: var park sites electrical supplies: TVHS tennis courts misc supplies: '12 teen egg hunt misc supplies: harveston classes misc supplies: wall of honor recp misc supplies: '12 Egg Hunt misc supplies:emp recognition 3/15 151001 03/22/2012 014302 COX, KANAN entertainment:bluegrass festival 151002 03/22/2012 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 193.41 176.44 1,133.53 1,519.49 166.35 364.30 2,279.42 202.95 1,563.99 4,532.51 500.00 500.00 plumbing svcs: civic center 950.00 plumbing svcs: Stn 73 plumbing svcs: Stn 73 plumbing svcs: Stn 73 plumbing srvcs: civic ctr & senior ctr 174.83 98.00 165.00 255.89 1,643.72 Page:2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151003 03/22/2012 013560 CROWN BUILDING MAINT CO INC Description Amount Paid Check Total FEB JANITORIAL SVCS: HARVESTON 233.96 FEB JANITORIAL SVCS: CITY FACILI FEB JANITORIAL SVCS: HARVESTO FEB JANITORIAL SVCS: FLD OP CTF 4,077.02 131.84 763.80 5,206.62 151004 03/22/2012 003272 DAISY WHEEL RIBBON plotter ink/paper: info tech 629.00 629.00 COMPANY INC 151005 03/22/2012 014729 DARLEY, DIANA refund:bal. on acct:1200.103 35.00 35.00 151006 03/22/2012 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL restroom rental: rod run 10/14-17 112.63 SRVCS restroom rental: ice rink Dec -Jan 632.65 Mar restroom svc: GOHS 52.78 portabel restroom:citywide cleanup 79.66 877.72 151007 03/22/2012 007319 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE & TIRE vehicle repair/maint: pw maint 105.32 105.32 INC 151008 03/22/2012 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER Mar watermeter:39569 Seraphina Rd 125.55 DIST Mar water meter:39656 Diego Dr 48.97 174.52 151009 03/22/2012 014419 ELLIOTT, MICHAEL G. Feb Idscp inspection:roripaugh 350.00 350.00 151010 03/22/2012 004829 ELLISON WILSON ADVOCACY Mar legislative cnslt svcs: CM LLC 151011 03/22/2012 007364 EMED COMPANY INC Fire Extinguisher Cover: CRC 151012 03/22/2012 009618 ENNIS PAINT INC street reflectivity beads: PW Maint traffic paint: PW Maint 3,500.00 3,500.00 109.62 109.62 754.25 5,656.88 6,411.13 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor 151013 03/22/2012 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Description irrigation repairs: woodcrest slope IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RANCHO CA irrigation repairs: var parks irrigation repairs: hary lake park irrigation repairs: redhawk park irrigation repairs: redhawk park irrigation repairs: var parks irrigation repairs: PBSP irrigation repair: tradewinds slope irrigation repair: vail ranch slope irrigation repair: wolf creek slope irrigation repair: temeku hills slope irrigation repair: ridgeview slope irrigation repair: crc IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SERENA HILI IRRIGATION REPAIRS: CROWNE HIL sod installation: rrsp baseball infield maint: rrsp landscape maint: redhawk park 151014 03/22/2012 009953 FEDERAL CLEANING JANITORIAL SRVCS:POLICE MALL CONTRACTORS OFFICE - 151015 03/22/2012 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 1/6-2/6 city express mail services 151016 03/22/2012 014736 FILES, SHANNON refund:sec dep:rm rental:Harveston 151017 03/22/2012 011922 FIRST AMERICAN CORELOGIC Feb database subscr: code enf INC 151018 03/22/2012 004074 FRANCHISE MGMT SERVICES misc supplies: mpsc INC Amount Paid Check Total 337.24 175.93 465.54 101.58 221.72 208.62 308.85 610.02 282.60 264.98 486.91 354.95 156.33 332.03 332.03 90.38 538.58 1,891.00 620.40 691.83 8,471.52 625.00 625.00 539.77 539.77 200.00 200.00 5.50 5.50 207.93 207.93 151019 03/22/2012 009097 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER 215.85 MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER 25.05 MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER 18.00 258.90 151020 03/22/2012 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC toner/ink cartridges: info tech 615.49 615.49 151021 03/22/2012 010326 G E MOBILE WATER, INC Mar power washer maint: Stn 73 59.00 Mar power washer rent: Stn 73 25.86 84.86 151022 03/22/2012 013552 GANDS PRODUCTIONS LLC sttlmnt: Country at the Merc 3/17 315.00 315.00 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 151023 03/22/2012 014716 GETTLER, RISA calligraphy workshop: TV Museum 151024 03/22/2012 014731 GREEN, CHARLES refund:prkg cite viol dismissed:81781 Amount Paid Check Total 200.00 200.00 30.00 30.00 151025 03/22/2012 005311 H2O CERTIFIED POOL WATER Feb fountain maint: civic center 500.00 SPCL. fountain maint: town square Feb pool maint: aquatics 151026 03/22/2012 004188 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES Feb citywide pavement rehab 175.00 900.00 1,575.00 3,345.00 3,345.00 151027 03/22/2012 002109 HD SUPPLY CONSTR. SUPPLY misc supplies: pw maint 93.29 93.29 LTD 151028 03/22/2012 007472 HEILBRUN, FRED Entertainment: Bluegrass Festival 800.00 800.00 151029 03/22/2012 003106 HERITAGE SECURITY Feb security svcs:harveston lake 1,344.00 1,344.00 SERVICES 151030 03/22/2012 001013 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & 3RD QTR CNSLT: SALES TAX ASSOC 151031 03/22/2012 014737 HOENE, JESSICA refund:preschool gymnastics 1722.103 3,178.23 3,178.23 76.00 76.00 151032 03/22/2012 004833 IMPERIAL PAVING COMPANY asphalt main:greensbora/palmetto 7,932.00 INC asphalt maint:tournament lane asphalt maint: masters drive asphalt maint:tmmnt In/bay hill dr 151033 03/22/2012 011228 INLAND PLANNING AND Feb cnslt: jefferson corridor DESIGN INC 151034 03/22/2012 014508 INNOVATIVE MOBILE AUTO VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT. PLANNING BODY 151035 03/22/2012 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Feb offsite media storage: records 151036 03/22/2012 010412 JOHNSON POWER SYSTEMS HVAC maint: Civic Center HVAC maint: Library HVAC maint: CRC HVAC maint: Fid Op Ctr HVAC maint: CH Bus Park Dr generator maint: Stn 92 generator maint: Stn 73 generator maint: Stn 84 12,936.00 16,476.00 12,199.00 49,543.00 5,800.00 5,800.00 4,514.51 4,514.51 459.15 459.15 676.57 551.94 426.32 665.82 545.98 537.21 502.35 326.61 4,232.80 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151037 03/22/2012 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES 1/27-3/8 eng pinck svcs:pw Idv 2,530.00 2,530.00 151038 03/22/2012 014312 KAMM INDUSTRIAL, INC. goal post wrap: pbsp field 300.00 300.00 151039 03/22/2012 001091 KEYSER MARSTON Feb affd housing cnslt: RDA 2,032.50 2,032.50 ASSOCIATES INC 151040 03/22/2012 014738 KITTLESON, DENISE refund:beg gymnastics 1724.103 80.00 80.00 151041 03/22/2012 000945 L P S COMPUTER SERVICE printer/plotter maint: info tech 345.81 345.81 GROUP 151042 03/22/2012 014432 LANAIR GROUP, LLC phone sys upgrade: info tech 3,020.51 3,020.51 151043 03/22/2012 012065 LANCE, SOLL & LUNGHARD SINGLE AUDIT FINAL: FY 10/11 217.00 217.00 LLC 151044 03/22/2012 014739 LANGE, CATHY refund:beg gymnastics 1725.103 80.00 80.00 151045 03/22/2012 013718 LEE, RICHARD M. entertainment:bluegrass festival 650.00 650.00 151046 03/22/2012 004087 LOWES INC misc supplies:harveston center 86.44 86.44 151047 03/22/2012 014228 LSK, LLC APR LEASE PMT: HARVESTON 4,714.00 4,714.00 CENTER 151048 03/22/2012 010953 M E I RESEARCH Equipment maint: Sta 12 33.90 33.90 CORPORATION 151049 03/22/2012 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS MISC SIGNS:PW MAINTENANCE 193.95 193.95 151050 03/22/2012 004141 MAINTEX INC Misc cleaning supplies:citywide 1,811.46 1,811.46 151051 03/22/2012 009812 MAISEY, JOHN reimb: Pool Operators Training 3/5 104.42 104.42 151052 03/22/2012 014184 MALCOLM SMITH Veh repair & maint:police 519.01 519.01 MOTORCYCLES, INC 151053 03/22/2012 004803 MAPLOGIC CORPORATION Software Iicense:ArcPad 990.00 990.00 Page:6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151054 03/22/2012 004307 MARINE BIOCHEMISTS Marwatermaint srvcs:Hary/Duck Pond 3,900.00 3,900.00 151055 03/22/2012 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS INC. Entertainment:bluegrass @ theater 3/17 3,000.00 3,000.00 151056 03/22/2012 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION PLAYGROUND EQUIP PARTS: 3,286.72 3,286.72 EQUIPMENT VARIOUS PARKS 151057 03/22/2012 012264 MIRANDA, JULIO C. TCSD Instructor Earnings 1,050.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 840.00 TCSD Instructor Earnings 252.00 2,142.00 151058 03/22/2012 001892 MOBILE MODULAR 151059 03/22/2012 004238 MURRIETA, CITY OF 151060 03/22/2012 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES 3/13-4/11 modular bldg lease: OATC Advertising cost:twin cities mrktg pgrm 3/23/12-3/22/13 subscr:Cntrl Srvcs 3432 614.18 614.18 500.00 500.00 165.00 165.00 151061 03/22/2012 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Misc office supplies:police o.t. office -13.03 DIV MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PD MALL 0 221.22 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES:PD MALL 0 13.53 221.72 151062 03/22/2012 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City Vehicle Maint Svcs:TCSD 23.75 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAI 304.71 CITY VEHICLE MAINT SVCS:PW MAI 665.11 993.57 151063 03/22/2012 013127 ON STAGE MUSICALS Broadway & Beyond 3/11/12 3,410.25 3,410.25 151064 03/22/2012 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Misc supplies:crc 115.99 115.99 INC 151065 03/22/2012 014183 PACIFIC SALES Washing Machine: Sta 73 151066 03/22/2012 004538 PAULEY EQUIPMENT Equip repair & maint:csd maint COMPANY 151067 03/22/2012 014730 PETERSON, RONALD refund:prkg cite viol dismissed:81733 151068 03/22/2012 014728 PINEDA, SALVADOR refund:ins prem pd 03-15-12 151069 03/22/2012 011720 PLUS 4 ENGINEERING INC Traffic PAS .100 Cert. Simulator 151070 03/22/2012 012904 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN Feb plan check srvcs:Fire Prevention 990.90 53.55 70.00 151.02 117.06 990.90 53.55 70.00 151.02 117.06 6,535.77 6,535.77 Page:7 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 151071 03/22/2012 013725 PROCRAFT INC 151072 03/22/2012 011952 RAD HATTER, THE 151073 03/22/2012 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT 151074 03/22/2012 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 151075 03/22/2012 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 151076 03/22/2012 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATION 151077 03/22/2012 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 151078 03/22/2012 014160 RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER 151079 03/22/2012 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR 151080 03/22/2012 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONTROL 151081 03/22/2012 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT 151082 03/22/2012 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO TECHNOLOGY 151083 03/22/2012 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 151084 03/22/2012 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT 151085 03/22/2012 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT (Continued) Description Garage Door Repair: Sta 84 Entertainrnent:chaparral event 3/17 Feb D.C. meter:Landings Rd Feb water meter:40135 Village Rd Feb var water meter:41951 Moraga Rd Feb Lndscp water meter:Calle Elenita Mar var water meters:TCSD svc lev C Reproduction srvcs:pavernent rehab City ROW cleanup:Old Town EQUIP RENTAL & MAINT:PW MAINT EQUIP RENTAL & MAINT:PW MAINT equipment rental: various park Feb 2012 legal services Feb 2012 legal services refund credit:Pennypickle's Wrkshp Jan '12 parking citation assessments Feb '12 parking citation assessments Jan encroach. permit: Ped/Bicycle Bridge Feb '12 K -Rat payment Feb radio rental:police/park rangers Lt. Dan Band concert patrol srvcs 3/1 mtr veh inspect trng 4/9-13 Johnson/Epp drug abuse recogn tmg 5/15-17 Johns( cannabis impaired driving 4/23-25 6 Amount Paid Check Total 1,222.00 500.00 18.04 107.92 488.50 28.27 4,774.27 18.10 1,800.00 1,222.00 500.00 5,417.00 18.10 1,800.00 17.10 44.93 433.63 495.66 12,148.15 19,984.75 32,132.90 35.00 35.00 6,815.50 6,235.88 13,051.38 1,876.58 1,876.58 765.00 765.00 1,236.04 1,236.04 2,558.81 2,558.81 628.00 87.00 715.00 600.00 600.00 Page:8 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151086 03/22/2012 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF renew permit:Theater 578.00 578.00 151087 03/22/2012 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FEB '12 TROLLEY SERVICES 151088 03/22/2012 014732 SCHMIDT, CANDICE 151089 03/22/2012 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC 151090 03/22/2012 000645 SMART & FINAL INC refund:prkg cite overpmt:81755 Jazz @ the Merc 03/15/12 Misc supplies:high hopes prgrm MISC SUPPLIES:MPSC Misc supplies:F.I.T. pgrm Misc supplies:recreation program 151091 03/22/2012 000374 SO CALIF EDISON New median Idscp srvc: Murr.Hot Springs 151092 03/22/2012 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Mar 2-33-237-4818:30499 Rancho Cal Feb 2-29-974-7568:26953 Ynez rd TC' Feb 2-31-693-9784:26036 Ynez rd TC' Feb 2-30-296-9522:31035 Rancho vista Feb 2-27-560-0625:32380 Deerhollow Feb 2-30-099-3847:29721 Ryecrest Feb 2-26-887-0789:40233 Village rd PI Feb 2-00-397-5059:Comm Svc UTL 1,636.10 1,636.10 60.00 60.00 548.00 548.00 111.94 178.22 213.62 507.99 1,011.77 2,043.90 2,043.90 96.48 126.62 398.79 416.55 2,987.31 22.64 1,434.23 9,717.29 15,199.91 151093 03/22/2012 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY Mar 015-575-0195-2:32211 Wolf vly rd 243.06 243.06 151094 03/22/2012 005786 SPRINT Jan 26 -Feb 25 cellular usage/equip 5,030.48 5,030.48 151095 03/22/2012 014717 STEPHEN SILLER TUNNEL Lt. Dan Band fundraiser3/1/12 96,174.35 96,174.35 151096 03/22/2012 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS install windowfilm: crc 259.00 259.00 151097 03/22/2012 008164 SUN CITY GRANITE INC engraving srvcs:vet memorial pavers 155.00 155.00 151098 03/22/2012 013387 SWEEPING UNLIMITED INC Mar sweeping Parking Structure 500.00 500.00 151099 03/22/2012 000305 TARGET BANK BUS CARD Misc supplies:childrens museum 55.00 SRVCS ARTIST HOSPITALITY: THEATER 32.57 ARTIST HOSPITALITY: THEATER 35.70 123.27 Page:9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank : union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 151100 03/22/2012 012265 TEMECULA ACE HARDWARE MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES:CSD 39.92 39.92 C/O MAINT 151101 03/22/2012 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS VEH REPAIR & MAINT:POLICE 219.48 LLC VEH REPAIR & MAINT:POLICE 375.32 594.80 151102 03/22/2012 011736 TEMECULA TROPHY INC Award medals:2012 science fair 33.94 Council chamber name/title plates:T. 36.10 70.04 151103 03/22/2012 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE Fire Extinguisher Maint Svc:Stn 73 51.00 51.00 EQUIP. CO 151104 03/22/2012 014056 TEMECULA YOUTH BASEBALL, refund:snack bar dep:harveston,RRSP 600.00 600.00 GENERAL FUND 151105 03/22/2012 010276 TIME WARNER CABLE Mar high speed internet:32211 Wolf vly 102.17 102.17 151106 03/22/2012 013474 TOWN & COUNTRY TOWING Veh towing srvcs:police 75.00 75.00 151107 03/22/2012 014304 VANLANDINGHAM, WILLIAM refund:lost material -library 25.93 25.93 151108 03/22/2012 004261 VERIZON Marxxx-0073 general usage 90.09 90.09 151109 03/22/2012 004789 VERIZON Mar Internet svcs:Civic Center 269.99 269.99 151110 03/22/2012 009101 VISION ONE INC Feb ShoWareticketing services:Theater 1,599.00 1,599.00 151111 03/22/2012 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 2/16-29 tree trimming srvcs:pw maint 15,640.00 2/16-29 tree trimming services:var park 728.00 tree trim/removal srvcs: crowne hill 27,945.00 44,313.00 151112 03/22/2012 004567 WITCHER ELECTRIC electrical srvcs:harveston lake park 760.00 760.00 151113 03/22/2012 000348 ZIGLER, GAIL Reimb:art framing 545.45 545.45 Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 436, 664.00 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 03/22/2012 5:00:43PM CITY OF TEMECULA 140 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 436,664.00 Page:11 Item No. 4 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Genie Wilson, Director of Finance DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012 PREPARED BY: Rudy Graciano, Revenue Manager RECOMMENDATION: Approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of February 29, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of February 29, 2012 Investments Par Value City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary February 29, 2012 Market Value Book %of Value Portfolio Term City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA, 92590 (951)694-6430 Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts Retention Escrow Account Letter of Credit Local Agency Investment Funds Federal Agency Callable Securities Federal Agency Bullet Securities Investments 63,180,926.62 6,196,284.68 1.00 38,3 21,541.68 15,000,000.00 19,999,999.99 141,697,853.98 63,180,926.62 6,1 96,284.68 1.99 38,3 76,331.70 15,1 64,289.99 19,119,269.99 63,180,926.62 6,1 6,284.68 1.00 38,3 21,541.68 15,999,999.99 18,988,750.00 44.59 4.3 7 9.99 27.95 10.59 13.49 142, 027,184.00 141,686,603.98 100.00% 1,473 1,222 1,998 833 0.214 9.999 9.999 9.384 1.809 1.215 9.217 9.999 9.999 9.389 1.825 1.231 320 219 0.553 0.560 Cash Passbook/Checking (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 3,184,1 24.27 144,881,978.25 3,184,124.27 3,184,1 24.27 145,211,308.27 144,870,728.25 1 1 9.999 9.999 320 219 0.553 0.560 Total Earnings February29 Month Ending Fiscal Yaar To Date Current Year Average Daily Balance Effective Rate of Return 66,164.25 142,570,618.21 0.58% Reporting period 02;0112012-02/29/2012 Run Date: 03/28+2012 -17:08 656,286.24 141,627,472.57 0.69% Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept8.42 Report Ver. 5.00 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments February 29, 2012 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 1 2221 6003-2 CITY COP RE2 ASSURED GUARANTY 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1 104348008-1 01-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-4 01-2 RESA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348016-3 01-2 RESB2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348000-4 01-2 SPTAX2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669911-2 03-1 ACQA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669921-3 03-1 ACQB3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669902-3 03-1 BON D3 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-3 03-1 RES A3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-2 03-1 RES B2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669900-4 03-1 SPTAX1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593011-2 03-2 ACQ 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593009-2 03-2 EMW D 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593007-2 03-2 IMP 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593016-4 03-2 LOC 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593010-2 03-2 PWADM2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593006-2 03-2 RES 2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 793593000-3 03-2 SPTX2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727011-2 03-3 ACQ2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727002-2 03-3 BOND 2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727007-2 03-3 CITY2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727009 03-3 EMW D 1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727006-3 03-3 RES3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 744727000-4 03-3 SP TX 4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-2 03-4 ADMIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686005-1 03-4 PREP1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686000-1 03-4 RED1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-2 03-4 RES2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776002-2 03-6 BON D2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776007-2 03-6 IMP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776006-2 03-6 RES2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 786776000-3 03-6 SP TX3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 95453510-2 88-12 BON D2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 95453518-4 88-12 GI4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 1 2221 6003-4 CITY COP RE4 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 122216008-3 CITY COPCIP2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 1 2221 600 0-2 CITY COPLPF2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INTI First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94 43 41 61-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Run Date: 03128!2012 - 17:08 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 Report Ver. 5.00 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments February 29, 2012 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 107886008-2 RDA 06 CIPA2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886001 RDA 06 PRIN First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886000-2 RDA O6A INT2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886018-3 RDA 06B CIP3 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886010-2 RDA O6B INT2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886016-2 RDA 06B RES2 First American Treasury 202,115.00 202,115.00 202,115.00 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 107886030-2 RDA 07 CAPI2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886027-2 RDA 07 ESC2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886020-2 RDA 07 INT2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886028-2 RDA 07 PROJ2 First American Treasury 209,279.60 209,279.60 209,279.60 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 107886026-2 RDA 07RES2 First American Treasury 1,111,032.42 1,111,032.42 1,111,032.42 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 SYSRDA 10 DS 1 RDA 10 DS 1 First American Treasury 1,269,700.19 1,269,700.19 1,269,700.19 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 SYSRDA 1 OA CIP2 RDA 1 OA CIP2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 19,945.28 19,945.28 19,945.28 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 136343001-2 RDA 10A -INTI First American Treasury 07/28/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 07/01/2011 2,060,884.39 2,060,884.39 2,060,884.39 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 136343000-1 RDA 10B -INTI First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94432360-2 TCSD COP INT First American Treasury 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 104348006-5 01-2 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 440,447.46 440,447.46 440,447.46 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 104348016-5 01-2 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 202,756.36 202,756.36 202,756.36 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 104348000-5 01-2 SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 608,931.83 608,931.83 608,931.83 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 15,124.55 15,124.55 15,124.55 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 388.84 388.84 388.84 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 864,017.64 864,017.64 864,017.64 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 222,980.37 222,980.37 222,980.37 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94669000-5 03-01SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 604,791.86 604,791.86 604,791.86 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 786776006-5 03-06 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 337,921.01 337,921.01 337,921.01 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 786776000-5 03-06SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 330,079.51 330,079.51 330,079.51 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593011-5 03-2 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 6,079.77 6,079.77 6,079.77 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593009-5 03-2 EMW D11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 5,190.48 5,190.48 5,190.48 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593016-5 03-2 LOC1 1 Federated Tax Free Obligations 141,923.90 141,923.90 141,923.90 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593010-5 03-2 PWADM11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 397.90 397.90 397.90 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593006-5 03-2 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 368.07 368.07 368.07 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593000-5 03-2 SPTX Federated Tax Free Obligations 2,002,026.10 2,002,026.10 2,002,026.10 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 793593007-5 03-2-IMPR11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1,143.78 1,143.78 1,143.78 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 744727006-5 03-3 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 2,171,415.66 2,171,415.66 2,171,415.66 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 744727011-5 03-3ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 41,974.89 41,974.89 41,974.89 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94686001-5 03-4 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 5,516.43 5,516.43 5,516.43 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94686005-5 03-4 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94686000-5 03-4 RED11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 66,139.73 66,139.73 66,139.73 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 Run Date: 03128!2012 - 17:08 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments February 29, 2012 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 94686006-5 03-4 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 744727000-5 03-SSPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 146161000-5 146161000-5 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1 461 61 006-5 RDA 11 DS11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 146161008-5 RDA 11ACIP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 1 461 61 009-5 RDA 11ACO111 Federated Tax Free Obligations 94432363 02001 Financial Security Assurance 793593011-1 03-2-1 ACQUI CA Local Agency Investment Fun 793593009-1 03-2-1 EMWD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 793593007-1 03-2-1 IMPRO CA Local Agency Investment Fun 793593010-1 03-2-1 PW AD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 793593006-3 03-2-3 RESER CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1 2221 600 8 CITY COP CIP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 122216003-1 CITY COP RE1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886008-1 RDA 06 CIP-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886018-2 RDA 06 CIP-2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886030-1 RDA 07 CAP -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886027-1 RDA 07 ESC -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES -1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 107886006 RDA 06 RES A MBIA Surety Bond 94434166 RDA TABS RES MBIA Surety Bond SYS95453516-1 95453516-1 USBANK Subtotal and Average 60,791,514.12 73,010.78 73,010.78 73,010.78 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 1,360,368.89 1,360,368.89 1,360,368.89 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 07/27/2011 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1,308,485.35 1,308,485.35 1,308,485.35 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 13,123,707.86 13,123,707.86 13,123,707.86 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 28,881,959.26 28,881,959.26 28,881,959.26 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 1,570,988.62 1,570,988.62 1,570,988.62 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 290,154.07 290,154.07 290,154.07 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 3,628,776.10 3,628,776.10 3,628,776.10 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 63,180,026.62 63,180,026.62 63,180,026.62 0.214 0.217 1 Retention Escrow Account 194012308-16 RJ NOBLE Bank of Sacramento 12/01/2011 336,617.45 336,617.45 336,617.45 0.000 0.000 1 SYSPI aza Pitnr PI aza Pitnr Wells Fargo Bank 01/01/2012 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 0.000 0.000 1 PORTOLA TRRC Portola Trrc Wells Fargo Bank 01/01/2012 1,859,667.23 1,859,667.23 1,859,667.23 0.000 0.000 1 Subtotal and Average 6,124,855.07 6,196,284.68 6,196,284.68 6,196,284.68 0.000 0.000 1 Letter of Credit 104348006-1 02008 ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2011 Subtotal and Average 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Local Agency Investment Funds 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 Run Date: 03128!2012 - 17:08 CA Local Agency Investment Fun CA Local Agency Investment Fun 315,450.46 315,450.46 315,450.46 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 3,907,217.29 3,907,217.29 3,907,217.29 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments February 29, 2012 Page 5 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Local Agency Investment Funds 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 932,946.27 932,946.27 932,946.27 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 744727007-1 03-3 CITY 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 786776007-1 03-6 IMP 1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 20,376,252.30 20,409,913.81 20,376,252.30 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSRDA 10 DS 2 RDA 10 DS 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSRDA 10A CIP1 RDA 10A CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSRDA 10 CIP 1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 12,789,675.36 12,810,803.87 12,789,675.36 0.389 0.384 0.389 1 Subtotal and Average 41,514,645.13 38,321,541.68 38,376,331.70 38,321,541.68 0.384 0.389 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 31331KPN4 01169 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/27/2011 1,000,000.00 1,001,630.00 1,000,000.00 1.050 1.036 1.050 848 06/27/2014 313372VP6 01167 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/23/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,650.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 662 12/23/2013 3134G1Y65 01162 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp 01/25/2011 1,000,000.00 1,005,050.00 1,000,000.00 1.500 1.479 1.500 876 07/25/2014 3134G2NK4 01170 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 07/11/2011 1,000,000.00 1,002,490.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 862 07/11/2014 3134G2RX2 01173 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp 07/25/2011 1,000,000.00 1,002,680.00 1,000,000.00 1.200 1.184 1.200 876 07/25/2014 3134G3BV1 01179 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 12/09/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,610.00 1,000,000.00 1.400 1.381 1.400 1,744 12/09/2016 3134G3CL2 01181 Federal Horne Loan Mtg Corp 12/16/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,480.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1,202 06/16/2015 3134G3PH7 01186 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 02/24/2012 1,000,000.00 995,490.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1,637 08/24/2016 3136F9CB7 01088 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/11/2008 2,000,000.00 2,077,240.00 2,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 375 03/11/2013 3136F9DP5 01090 Federal National Mtg Assn 03/27/2008 1,000,000.00 1,040,190.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 3.945 4.000 391 03/27/2013 3136FPZD2 01157 Federal National Mtg Assn 12/03/2010 1,000,000.00 1,005,030.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 1,007 12/03/2014 3136FRZQ9 01171 Federal National Mtg Assn 07/20/2011 1,000,000.00 1,003,130.00 1,000,000.00 1.250 1.233 1.250 963 10/20/2014 3136FRB44 01172 Federal National Mtg Assn 07/22/2011 1,000,000.00 1,019,990.00 1,000,000.00 2.125 2.096 2.125 1,604 07/22/2016 3136FTBQ1 01176 Federal National Mtg Assn 10/24/2011 1,000,000.00 1,009,620.00 1,000,000.00 1.350 1.332 1.350 1,698 10/24/2016 Subtotal and Average 15,379,310.34 15, 000,000.00 15,164,280.00 15,000, 000.00 1.800 1.825 1,008 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331GE47 01135 Federal Farm Credit Bank 07/29/2009 1,000,000.00 1,027,260.00 997,500.00 2.250 2.284 2.316 515 07/29/2013 31331GG37 01137 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/04/2009 1,000,000.00 1,017,800.00 1,000,000.00 2.150 2.121 2.150 340 02/04/2013 31331GZ44 01144 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/15/2009 1,000,000.00 1,008,480.00 1,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 1.550 228 10/15/2012 31331KCA6 01164 Federal Farm Credit Bank 02/10/2011 1,000,000.00 1,017,570.00 1,000,000.00 1.375 1.356 1.375 711 02/10/2014 31331KTK6 01174 Federal Farm Credit Bank 08/01/2011 1,000,000.00 1,007,450.00 1,000,000.00 0.875 0.863 0.875 883 08/01/2014 31331KE55 01175 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/06/2011 1,000,000.00 1,004,880.00 1,000,000.00 1.300 1.282 1.300 1,680 10/06/2016 31331KK58 01177 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/26/2011 1,000,000.00 1,004,220.00 1,000,000.00 1.050 1.036 1.050 1,334 10/26/2015 31331KV98 01178 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/23/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,260.00 1,000,000.00 0.970 0.957 0.970 1,362 11/23/2015 31331KY79 01180 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/29/2011 1,000,000.00 999,050.00 1,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 0.500 638 11/29/2013 Run Date: 03/28/2012 - 17:08 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments February 29, 2012 Page 6 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Bullet Securities 31331K2P4 01182 Federal Farm Credit Bank 12/09/2011 1,000,000.00 1,000,730.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 1,378 12/09/2015 31331K6P0 01183 Federal Farm Credit Bank 01/19/2012 1,000,000.00 993,350.00 1,000,000.00 0.850 0.838 0.850 1,419 01/19/2016 3133XTXC5 01130 Federal Horne Loan Bank 06/11/2009 1,000,000.00 1,005,910.00 1,000,000.00 2.250 2.219 2.250 102 06/11/2012 3133XVEM9 01150 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/04/2009 1,000,000.00 1,010,300.00 1,000,000.00 1.625 1.603 1.625 265 11/21/2012 313372UH5 01166 Federal Horne Loan Bank 03/15/2011 1,000,000.00 1,012,050.00 1,000,000.00 1.125 1.110 1.125 561 09/13/2013 313374CZ1 01168 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/22/2011 1,000,000.00 1,011,960.00 1,000,000.00 1.000 0.986 1.000 935 09/22/2014 313376V77 01184 Federal Horne Loan Bank 01/23/2012 1,000,000.00 996,850.00 1,000,000.00 0.520 0.513 0.520 1,058 01/23/2015 313376Y42 01185 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/13/2012 1,000,000.00 992,790.00 1,000,000.00 0.400 0.395 0.400 1,079 02/13/2015 313378AC5 01187 Federal Horne Loan Bank 02/22/2012 1,000,000.00 992,190.00 1,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 0.500 1,177 05/22/2015 31398AYM8 01139 Federal National Mtg Assn 08/10/2009 1,000,000.00 1,007,160.00 991,250.00 1.750 2.024 2.052 162 08/10/2012 Subtotal and Average 17,850,818.97 19,000,000.00 19,110,260.00 18, 988, 750.00 1.215 1.231 833 Total and Average 142,570,618.21 Run Date: 03/28/2012 - 17:08 141,697,853.98 142,027,184.00 141,686,603.98 0.553 0.560 219 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 CUSIP City of Temecula, California Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash February 29, 2012 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Page 7 Retention Escrow Account SYSAAA#1202 AAA#1202 COMMUNITY BANK 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 4110170281 EDGEDEV TORRY PINES BANK 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 23303800 PCL CONST Wells Fargo Bank 07/01/2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Passbook/Checking Accounts SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2011 2,810.00 2,810.00 2,810.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSFIex Ck Acct Flex Ck Acct Union Bank of California 07/01/2011 20,803.54 20,803.54 20,803.54 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGen Ck Acct Gen Ck Acct Union Bank of California 3,151,578.73 3,151578.73 3,151,578.73 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2011 8,932.00 8,932.00 8,932.00 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 1 Total Cash and Investments 142,570,618.21 Run Date: 03128!2012 - 17:08 144,881,978.25 145, 211, 308.27 144,870,728.25 0.553 0.560 219 Portfolio TEME CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept 6.42 Fund CITY OF TEMECULA Cash Balances Through February 2012 Fund Title Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 35,1 47,620.51 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 1.004.059.53 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 5,769,418.94 150 AB 2766 FUND 219,575.89 165 RDA AFFORDABLE HOUSING 20% SET ASIDE 25,196,131.76 170 MEASURE A FUND 6,682,016.48 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 970,592.01 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 152,279.82 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 281,428.27 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 7,990.95 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 241,410.12 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 295,053.45 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 12,183,923.16 273 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL IMPROVEMENT FUND 4,238,181.14 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 974,921.16 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 30,465,361.91 280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 39,402.93 300 INSURANCE FUND 587,212.39 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 1,118,536.80 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 528,623.18 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 366,226.40 340 FACILITIES 205,131.59 375 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM 17,997.82 380 RDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,749,497.83 390 TCSD 2001 COP'S DEBT SERVICE 9.31 395 2011 FINANCING LEASE 2001 & 2008 COPS 1,752.95 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 84,819.63 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 1,349,128.67 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,831,302.85 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 156,068.92 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,927,083.32 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 733,505.77 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 7,439,376.89 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 17,429.39 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 43,084.61 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 22,556.55 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 3,040.58 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 14,859.82 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 10,420.69 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 4,424.72 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 57,430.93 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 13,656.65 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 6,312.60 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 1,316.06 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 33,353.38 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 14,069.85 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 5,982.19 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 4,046.13 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 72,440.58 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 821.14 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18TEMEKU HILLS 39,936.25 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 46,579.44 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 172,535.89 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 133,388.98 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 1,603.87 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 10,332.32 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 195,388.51 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 28,263.69 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 575.97 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 7,546.99 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 246,455.71 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 4,887.26 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES 32,925.17 GRAND TOTAL 145211 'ma 27 Item No. 5 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager MT - 2451.0 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Reallocation of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funds PREPARED BY: Dale West, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize transfer of $295,531 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 131 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project; 2. Authorize transfer of $9,442 from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Fund 210 to the Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project. BACKGROUND: In March 2010, the City of Temecula was awarded grant funds through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 to develop energy efficiency programs. The City was granted $940,700 from the Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG). Three projects were identified to be funded with grant funds: the Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization Project, the Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Project, and the Municipal Facilities Energy Retrofit Project. The grant ends on September 24, 2012 and all funds must be expended by this date. In August 2010, the City Council authorized the purchase and installation of the Adaptive Traffic Signal Synchronization equipment along the Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, Temecula Parkway and Jefferson Avenue corridors. The project was completed in August 2011. In September 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-66, authorizing the allocation of EECBG funds, the terms of the energy efficiency loans, and authorized the City Manager to develop program guidelines for the Residential Energy Efficiency Program (REEP). The program was initiated in January 2011; however there has been little interest in the program, and of those residents that have expressed an interest, they have not been able to qualify for funding under the terms of the program. Prior to the Council's authorization of the REEP, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) expressed an interest in developing a similar financing program for energy efficiency retrofit projects. The City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 09-96, expressing support and an interest in participating in the program subject to the outcome of the feasibility analysis and development of program guidelines. In May 2011, the City of Temecula entered into an Implementation Agreement with WRCOG, for WRCOG to implement and administer their program. Based on the new program being implemented by WRCOG and the underutilization of REEP funds, staff is recommending reallocation of REEP funds to retrofit traffic safety and bridge lighting. Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project The Traffic Safety and Bridge Light Retrofit Project will replace lower efficiency high pressure sodium lighting technology with more energy efficient induction lighting technology at 240 traffic intersections and atop bridges within the City of Temecula. There are four high pressure sodium lamps ranging in wattage from 200 - 450 watts per lamp at each intersection The traffic safety and bridge lights operate approximately 12 hours per day and 365 days a year. The annual electricity usage for the existing high pressure sodium street lights is estimated at 492,750 kWh. The proposed induction lamps use 85 watts compared to the existing high pressure sodium lamps, which use 200, 250 and 450 watt lamps. The City considered both LED and induction lighting technologies; however staff determined the light dispersion quality, energy efficiencies, and reliability of the induction lamps are preferable over the LED lamps. The annual electricity usage with the induction lamps is estimated at 179,580 kWh. Replacing the high pressure sodium lights with higher efficient induction lighting technology would reduce energy use and save the City operational and maintenance costs. The Traffic Safety and Bridge Lighting Retrofit Program will use approximately $305,000 of EECBG funds for the retrofit project. The annual savings of this project are estimated to be 313,170 kWh and $66,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost for this project is $305,000. All funding for the Traffic Safety and Bridge Lighting Retrofit project will come from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds. No General Fund revenues will be used for this project. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 6 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager 24.0 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Indemnity Agreement for Southern California Edison Triton Substation Project, PR09-0011 PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer John Pourkazemi, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Southern California Edison (SCE) Indemnity Agreement for SCE's Triton Substation project, PR09-0011. BACKGROUND: Southern California Edison, a Public Utility Company, is proposing to construct an electrical substation, the Triton Substation, PR09-0011, at the southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa. The subject property is in an unmapped area of the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) where the 100 -year limits of the flood way and flood plain have not been ascertained by the Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). During a 100 -year flood event, it is possible that construction of the Triton Substation may alter the existing or current flood plain limits of the Santa Gertrudis Creek on two properties (identified as Assessor's Parcel Nos. APN 957-090-023 and APN 957-090-022). It is also possible that the widening of Calle Medusa (as required by the construction of the Triton Substation) will increase the amount of street runoff and cause additional water flow to the parking lot of the property identified as APN 957-140-010. With this Indemnity Agreement, SCE has agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its officers and employees from and against claims from three affected landowners. The two landowners associated with APNs 957-090-023 and 957-090-022 may have concerns arising from damages resulting from the altered 100 -year floodplain condition resulting from the construction of the Triton Substation. The remaining landowner associated with APN 957-140-010 may have concerns from damages resulting from the increased street runoff from Calle Medusa caused by the widening of this road. Furthermore, SCE has also agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its officers and employees from and against claims that may arise from vector control issues related to certain basins in the Triton Substation property. In order to protect the City's interest, staff has requested this Indemnity Agreement from SCE prior to issuance of the grading permit. The City Attorney has reviewed the Agreement and has found it acceptable, as presented. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Indemnity Agreement INDEMNITY AGREEMENT TRIS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT ("Indemnity Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2012 (the "Effective Date") by and between THE CITY OF TEMECULA ("Indemnitee") and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation ("Indemnitor"). RECITALS A. Indemnitor wishes to construct an electrical substation (the "Triton Substation") in the city of Temecula. • B. The Triton Substation will be located within an unmapped area of the Federal Insurance Rate Map where the limits of the 100 -year flood way and floodplain have not been ascertained by the Flood Emergency Management Agency. C. It is possible that the construction of the Triton Substation will alter the existing or current floodplain limits of Santa Gertrudis Creek on Assessor's Parcel Number 957-090-023 and Assessor's Parcel Number 957-090-022 (collectively, "Affected Parcels") during a 100 -year flood event. D. It is also possible that the widening of Calle Medusa, required by the construction of the Triton Substation, will alter the street water flows on Calle Medusa and cause. additional water flow to the parking lot located on Assessor's Parcel Number 957-140-010 (the "Church Property"). E. Indemnitor has agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Indemnitee, its officers and employees (individually, the "Indemnified Party" and, collectively, the "Indemnitee Parties") from and against claims (a) from the landowners of the Affected Parcels that may arise from darnages which are the result of altered 100 -year floodplain condition caused by the construction of the Triton Substation and (b) from the landowner of the Church Property that may arise from damages, if any, which are the result of increased street water runoff from Calle Medusa caused by widening of Calle Medusa. F. Indemnitor has also agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitee Parties from any and against claims that may arise from vector control issues related to certain basins at the Triton Substation. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Indemnitee and Indemnitor agree as follows: 1. Affected Parcels Indemnity. Indemnitor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all claims (collectively, "Affected Parcels Claims") from the landowners of the Affected Parcels that arise from any and all 1 da.rnages on those portions of the Affected Parcels depicted on each of Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto as "Flood Plain Expansion Area," if such damages are caused directly by the potential incremental change in the existing or current 100 -year floodplain limits resulting from lndemnitor's construction of the Triton substation (the "Affected Parcels Indemnity"). However, hrdenunitor shall not indemnify, defend and hold the Indemnitee Parties harmless from any Affected Party Claim caused, in whole or in part, by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee Party. 2. Church Property Indemnity. Indemnitor has also agreed to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitee Parties from and against claims from the landowner of the Church Property ("Chinch Claims") that may arise in the unlikely event there is damage caused by the additional water flow, if any, from Calle Medusa onto the parking lot on the Church Property caused directly by the widening of Calle Medusa required by the construction of the Triton Substation (the "Church Indemnity"). However, Indemnitor shall not indemnify, defend and hold the Indemnitee Parties harmless from any Church Claim caused, in whole or in part, by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee Party. 3. Vector Control Indemnity. Indemnitor hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all claims (collectively, "Vector Control Claims") that arise from any and all damages that result from vector control issues at the Triton Substation's retention and water quality basins (the "Vector Control Indemnity"). However, Indemnitor shall not indemnify, defend and hold the Indenmitee Parties harmless from any Vector Control Claim caused, in whole or in part, by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee Party. 4. Terms. The term of the Affected Parcels Indemnity and the Church Indemnity provided for herein will commence on the Effective Date and tenninate upon the construction of ultimate flood control improvements within the Santa Gertrudis Creek that will provide flow conveyance of the 100 -year flow. The term of the Vector Control Indemnity provided for herein will continence on the Effective Date and continue until the Triton Substation's retention and water quality basins are no longer in use. 5. Notice to Indemnitor. In the event that any claim or demand for which the Indemnified Party may claim indemnity is asserted or sought to be collected from the Indemnified Party, the Indemnified Party shall as promptly as practicable notify Indemnitor following receipt by the Indemnified Party of such claim or demand. Failure to so notify shall relieve Indemnitor of liability to indemnify such Indermnified Party only to the extent, if any, such failure materially prejudices Indemnitor or results in the loss of substantive rights or defenses. 6. Defense of Claims. The Indemnified Party shall furnish Indemnitor with all assistance reasonably required by Indemnitor to defend against each claim, including (without limitation) reasonable access to all relevant documents and records. As between the Indemnified Party and Indemnitor, the direction and control of all proceedings involving the third party shall be in the Indemnitor. 7. Entire Agreement. This indemnity Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to transactions contemplated hereby and all statements, oral or written, are merged herein. No modification, waiver, amendment, discharge or change of this Indemnity Agreement shall be valid unless the same is in writing and signed by the party against which the enforcement of such modification, waiver or amendment, discharge or change is or may be sought. • 8. Successors and Assigns. All terms of this Indemnity Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. 9. Governing Law. This Indemnity Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, except to the extent preempted by federal laws. 10. Notices. All notices or other cotmnunications between Indemnitor and Indenuritee required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and personally delivered or sent by certified mail, return receipt requested and prepaid, or sent by reputable overnight courier (such as Federal Express, UPS or DHL) to the following addresses: If to Indemnitee: The City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92589 Attn: City Manager If to Indemnitor: Southern California Edison Company 6 Pointe Drive Brea, California 92821 • Attn: Major Projects Organization with a copy to: Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attn: Legal Department, Claims Litigation Section A notice shall be effective on the date of personal delivery if personally delivered before 5:00 p.m., otherwise on the day following personal delivery, two (2) business days following the date the notice is postmarked, if mailed, or on the day following delivery to the applicable overnight courier, if sent by overnight courier. Either party may change the address to which 3 notices are to be given to it by giving notice of such change of address in the manner set forth above for giving notice. 11. Miscellaneous. If any provision of this Indemnity Agreement shall be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that portion shall be deemed severed from this Indemnity and the remaining parts shall remain in full force as though the invalid, illegal or unenforceable portion had never been part of this Indemnity Agreement. This Indemnity Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, including facsimile counterparts, each of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original, and all such counterparts, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. 114 WITNESS WHEREOF, this Indemnity Agreement has been executed as of the Effective Date. INDEMNITEE: THE CITY OF TEMECULA By: Name: Its: INDEMNITOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, a California corporation By: Name: Its: DB 4 EXHIBIT A Depiction of Flood Expansion Area on APN 957-090-023 [to be attached] 5 PROPERTY EXHIBIT INOIAN SUMIAER R OWNERS: ISAAC G. NAVEJAR ISABEL L. NAVEJAR APN 957-090-23 LEGEND: - 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN AREA = 1.67 ACRES (72,835 SQUARE FEET) - FLOODPLAIN EXPANSION AREA = 0.08 ACRES (3,384 SQUARE FEET) MOM 1 SCALE: 1"=100' 'TR1�ON r PARCEL 1 (SUB'fiON^ PARCEL 2 AEICASC CONSULTING 937 SOUTH V1A. LATA, SUITE 500 COLTON, CA 92324 PH. (909) 783-0101; FAX (909) 783-0100 EXHIBIT B Depiction of Flood Expansion Area on APN 957-090-022 [to be attached] 6 PROPERTY EXHIBIT Ot LEGEND: 71.41144 — 100—YEARS FLOODPLAIN AREA = 2.04 ACRES (86,744 SQUARE FEET) — FLOODPLAIN EXPANSION AREA = 0.14 ACRES (5,059 SQUARE FEET) ~ ^ NICOL ROAD SCE TRITON PARCEL 1 SO85%11014 PARCEL- AEICASC CONSULTING 937 SOUTH VIA LATA, SOITE 500. COLTON, CA 92324 ax. (909) lea—otos; FAX009783-30 Item No. 7 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Quitclaim Deeds granting five Drainage Easements for the Wolf Valley Storm Drain Improvements to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) — Tract Map No. 23065 (Peach Tree Street and Deer Hollow Way) PREPARED BY: Mayra De La Torre, Senior Engineer Steve Charette, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION MADE ON TRACT MAP NO. 23065 AND BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) FIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE WOLF VALLEY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM (TRACT MAP NO. 23065) BACKGROUND: The Wolf Valley Storm Drain Improvements for Tract Map 23065 (Project Nos. 7-0-00262-02, 7-0-00263 and 7-0-00265) have been completed and Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (DISTRICT) is prepared to accept the storm drain improvements for operation and maintenance. The DISTRICT will acquire the drainage facilities in accordance with the terms of two Cooperative Agreements recorded on November 19, 2001 and August 15, 2003 by the DISTRICT, the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula and the developer, Centex Homes. Pursuant to these Agreements, the developer will construct said facilities and the DISTRICT will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for the storm drain system after satisfactory completion. The completed Wolf Valley Storm Drain facilities within Tract Map 23065 are as follows with the respective easements described in the attached five quitclaim deeds: 1. Wolf Valley - Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2— Project No. 7-0-0262 — TM23065-3, Lot 136 (RCFC Parcel No. 7262-500) 2. Wolf Valley — Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2 — Project No. 7-0-0262—TM23065, Lot 325 (RCFC Parcel No. 7262-501) 3. Wolf Valley — Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2 — Project No. 7-0-0262 — TM23065, Lot 330 (RCFC Parcel No. 7262-502 & 503) 4. Wolf Valley — Pechanga Road SD — Project No. 7-0-0263 — PM24387, Lot 19 (RCFC Parcel No. 7263-500) 5. Wolf Valley — Vine Street SD — Project No. 7-0-0265 — TM23065, Lot 327 (RCFC Parcel No. 7265-500) Storm drain easements 2, 3 and 5 listed above were dedicated to the County of Riverside as shown on the recorded Tract Map 23065 on behalf of the DISTRICT, while storm drain easements 1 and 4 were dedicated to the County of Riverside on behalf of the DISTRICT as separate recorded Instrument Nos. 2002-078699 and 2004-0939761 (i.e., Declaration of Dedication and Irrevocable Offer of Dedication, respectively). At the time of the recordation of the maps and the recordation of the separate instruments, the County of Riverside did not accept the offers of dedication of the storm drain easements. Tract Map 23065 was originally located within the unincorporated county and approved as a map by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on January 31, 2003. The Tract was subsequently annexed into the City of Temecula on June 30, 2005 as part of the Redhawk area annexation. As a result of the annexation, all offers of dedication shown on Tract Map 23065 and separate recorded instruments were transferred to the City. In order for the DISTRICT to accept the storm drain facilities for maintenance, the City needs to accept the offers of dedication of the respective drainage easements (as shown on the recorded maps and separate recorded instruments) and execute the attached five quitclaim deeds conveying the drainage easement to the DISTRICT. With the adoption of the first resolution (attached), the five drainage easements, as described above, will be formally accepted by the City. Upon City Council execution of the quitclaim deeds under the second resolution, the quitclaim deeds will be forwarded to the DISTRICT and County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for their approval and recordation. Staff recommends acceptance of the offers of dedication (for drainage purposes) and the execution of the quitclaim deeds conveying the easements to the DISTRICT. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will be relieved of maintenance responsibility. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Accepting Offers of Dedication Resolution No. 12- 2. Approving Quit Claim Deeds Resolution No. 12- 3. Quitclaim Deed labeled RCFC Parcel No. 7262-500 and Plat labeled Attachment "1" 4. Quitclaim Deed labeled RCFC Parcel No. 7262-501 and Plat labeled Attachment "1" 5. Quitclaim Deed labeled RCFC Parcel No. 7262-502 & 503 and Plat labeled Attach "1" 6. Quitclaim Deed labeled RCFC Parcel No. 7263-500 and Plat labeled Attachment "1" 7. Quitclaim Deed labeled RCFC Parcel No. 7265-500 and Plat labeled Attachment "1" RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION MADE ON TRACT MAP NO. 23065 AND BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does find, determine and declare that: A. Tract Map 23065 was recorded on January 31, 2003 in Tract Map Book 330, Pages 20 through 38, inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California; B. Five flood control easements were offered for dedication to the County of Riverside on behalf of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on Tract Map 23065 and by separate recorded instruments consisting of the following (the "Easements"): 1. Easement for flood control and maintenance purposes within Lot 325, as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Tract Map Book 216, Pages 18 through 20, inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as "Attachment 1," attached hereto, for reference purposes only. 2. Easement for flood control and maintenance purposes within Lot 327, as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Tract Map Book 216, Pages 18 through 20, inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as "Attachment 1," attached hereto, for reference purposes only. 3. Easement for flood control and maintenance purposes within Lot 330, as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Tract Map Book 216, Pages 18 through 20, inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as "Attachment 1," attached hereto, for reference purposes only. 4. Easement for flood control and maintenance purposes within Lot 136 of Tract Map No. 23065-3, as shown on separate recorded instrument 2002-078699, "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B," attached hereto, for reference only. 5. Easement for flood control and maintenance purposes within Lot 19 of Parcel Map No. 24387(immediately adjacent to Tract 23065), as shown on separate recorded instrument 2002-078699, "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B," attached hereto, for reference only. C. County of Riverside Tract Maps 23065 and 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 were annexed into the City of Temecula on June 30, 2005 as part of the Redhawk area annexation; D. As a result of the Redhawk area annexation, all offers of dedication for drainage easements shown on Tract Map 23065 and shown by separate recorded instruments within Tract 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 were transferred to the City of Temecula; E. The City now desires to accept the Easements. Section 2. The City of Temecula hereby accepts the Easements. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record this Resolution or such documents as are necessary to confirm the acceptance of the Easements. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized and directed to approve, accept and execute on behalf of the City such documents and instruments as necessary to effectuate the acceptance of the Easements. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING FIVE QUITCLAIM DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) FIVE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE WOLF VALLEY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM (TRACT MAP NO. 23065) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Wolf Valley Storm Drain improvements (Project Nos. 7-0-00262-02, 7- 0-00263, and 7-0-00265) were constructed to act as flood control protection for the proposed residential development of Tract Map 23065; B. Five flood control easements were offered for dedication to the County of Riverside on behalf of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (DISTRICT) on Tract Map 23065 and by separate recorded instruments within Tract Map 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 but were riot accepted by the County at the time of recordation; C. County of Riverside Tract Maps 23065 and 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 were annexed into the City of Temecula on June 30, 2005 as part of the Redhawk area annexation. D. As a result of the Redhawk area annexation, all offers of dedication for drainage easements shown on Tract Map 23065 and shown by separate recorded instruments within Tract 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 were transferred to the City of Temecula. E. By Resolution No. 12- adopted on April 10, 2012, the City Council accepted the Offers of Dedication for drainage easements described in the attached Quitclaim Deeds that were made by the owners within Tract Maps 23065 and 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 to the County of Riverside; F The DISTRICT is prepared to accept the Wolf Valley Storm Drain improvements for maintenance in accordance with the terms of two Cooperative Agreements, executed on November 19, 2001 and August 15, 2003 by the DISTRICT, the County of Riverside, the City of Temecula, and Centex Homes, including said drainage easements within Tracts 23065, 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387; G. Accepting said Offers of Dedication for the five drainage easements within Tracts 23065, 23065-3 and Parcel Map 24387 and conveying the drainage easements to the DISTRICT is necessary to comply with the terms of the Cooperative Agreements and serves the public interests. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Quitclaim deeds attached. The City Council further directs and authorizes the Mayor to execute said Quitclaim deeds on behalf of the City. Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of the Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk Recorded at request of, and return to: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Wolf Valley -Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2 Project No. 7-0-0262 Tract No. 23065 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF TEMECULA, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all right, title and interest in and to easements, situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in: Declaration of Dedication recorded February 13, 2002, as Instrument No. 2002-078699, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel 7262- 500 as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", attached for reference purposes only. Assessor's Parcel No. 962-451-002 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation: Date By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTESTS: Susan W. Jones, MMC, Clerk to the City of Temecula By: City Clerk (SEAL) • CONSENT TO RECORD (GOV. CODE 7050) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the County of Riverside consents to the recordation of this Declaration of Dedication pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement Recorded November 19, 2001 as Instrument No. 2001-571384 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 1995 MARKET STREET, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) Wolf Valley- Deer Hollow Way Storm Drain Wolf Valley- Pechanga Road Storm Drain Wolf Valley- Primrose Avenue Storm Drain Tract No. 230651.2__ Project No. 7-0-0026 7-0-0263, and 7-0-0264 Lot 25 Storm Drain DOC #6 2002--078699 02/13/2002 08:00A Fee:NC Page 1 of 6 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Gary L". Orso Assessor, County Clerk & Recorder 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 M S U PAGE SIZE DA PCOR NOCOR SMF MISC. CQ A R L COPY LONG REFUND NCHG EXNA DECLARATION OF DEDICATION REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC., a California Corporation, hereby Irrevocably Dedicates in Perpetuity to the County of Riverside, on behalf of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, an easement for flood control and drainage purposes for the construction, use, repair, reconstruction, inspection, operation and maintenance of Wolf Valley- Deer Hollow Way Storm Drain, Pechanga Road Storm Drain, and Primrose Avenue Storm Drain and all appurtenant works, including ingress and egress thereto, over, under and across that certain real property situated in the unincorporated area of the County of Riverside, State of California, described in legal description attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and made a part hereof. REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC., a California Corporation: Date: WO/ By: PAUL GARRETT, President E0//////////////////////////// (signatures must be notarized) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of S' 4 h On ,a--(5---01 Date personally appeared , before me, fact./ SS. / JCt W e)) NANCY J. WEBB Commission # 1186295 Z Notary Public - California San Diego County My Comm. Expires Jun 8, 2002 Place Notary Seal Above Name and r io of Officer (e.g.. 'Jane Doe. Notary Public') Name(s) of Signer(s) �J personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name) is/acs subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/shefthey executed the same in his/her/44r authorized capacityttee,I, and that by his/IireFAheir signature on the instrument the personN, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(`) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Notary Public Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited 0 General ❑ Attorney in Fact O Trustee O Guardian or Conservator O Other: Signer Is Representing: 4WQ.. .,1 • d',`et , er,• 7 234 r,gti • ,•y "ar, ri,er<•ey4z,2y�, .ri&ez, er tom. er. ® 1997 National Notary Association • 9350 De Soto Ave.. P.O. Box 2402 • Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 ar, Prod. No. 5907 RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER Top of thumb here Reorder: Call Toll -Free 1-800-876-6827 1111111 111111 1111 11111 1111111 11111 11111 111 11111 1111 1111 &'0381:71 r�. CONSENT TO ACTION IN LIEU OF MEETING OF THE SOLE DIRECTOR OF REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC. The action set forth below is taken by written consent of the sole Director of Redhawk Communities, Inc., a California corporation (the "Corporation") without a meeting, in accordance with the provisions of Section 307(b) of the California Corporations Code and the Bylaws of the Corporation. The undersigned adopts the following resolutions: RESOLVED, that PAUL GARRETT, President of this Corporation, acting alone, is authorized to sign any and all legal documents and agreements on behalf of Redhawk Communities, Inc., a California corporation, including but not limited to any and all documents and agreements with the County of Riverside, State of California or any department or agency thereof. Any Riverside County agent or agency can conclusively rely on this Resolution unless i) expressly revoked by a subsequent Resolution; and, ii) such subsequent Resolution is served upon such County agent or agency. Dated effective as of September 6, 2001 re hPr Paul Garrett, Sole Director IIIkL 111111 Itt ItItI III IIII II 111 11111 tUt IIt 2002-078899 02/ 13/20o2 088.006 RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA 92591 September 21, 2001 JN 15100312-M8 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" RCFC & WCD STORM DRAIN EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated in the Unincorporated Territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 25 of Parcel Map No. 24387 filed in Book 164, Pages 5 through 20 in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, described as follows: COMMENCING at an angle point in the general northerly line of said Parcel 25, said point being the northwesterly terminus of a course therein shown as "North 30°26'32" West 49.43 feet" on said parcel map; thence along said course South 30°25'56" East 30.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said course South 30°25'56" East 17.40 feet to a point on a non -tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 122.50 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 41°58'23" East; thence along said curve southwesterly 63.18 feet through a central angle of 29°33'01" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 104.50 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 71°3124" West; thence along said curve southwesterly 55.67 feet through central angle of 30°31'29"; thence non -tangent from said curve South 48°3T01" West 39.09 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 62.50 feet; thence along said curve westerly 66.40 feet through a central angle of 60°52125''; thence non -tangent from said curve North 48°03'38" East 37.65 feet; thence North 00°06'07" East 7.26 feet to a point on a non -tangent curve concave northerly and having a radius of 27.50 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 15°17'33" West; 1111111iiuniiumu�i�uuiuimullmllmiim 02f11a�r "A RCFC & WCD Storm Drain Easement September 21, 2001 JN 15100312-M8 Page 2 of 2 thence along said curve easterly 12.56 feet through a central angle of 26°10'26"; thence tangent from said curve North 48°32'01" East 39.25 feet to a point on a non -tangent curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 69.50 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears North 40°53'34" West; thence along said curve northeasterly 37.16 feet through a central angle of 30°37'50" to a point of reverse curvature with a curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 157.50 feet, a radial line of said curve from said point bears South 71°31'24" East; thence along said curve northeasterly 17.39 feet through central angle of 06°19'31"; thence non -tangent from said curve North 45°39'20" East 0.51 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly and having a radius of 270.00 feet; thence along said curve northeasterly 65.45 feet through a central angle of 13°53'20" to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING: 0.144 Acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights of Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT "B" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. . This description was prepared by me or under my direction. aaymond L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185 My license expires 3/31/02. 1111111 110111111 111 H:\pdata\15100312\admin\Legals\3121g1008.wpd 111110111111111111011111110111162'1I/WIT.. U 0 60 120 180 GRAPHIC SCALE QUve �\� ��J\s�1 13 1 ti N QA 453, 34"W / •. N40• (Ri � 0� I115•,�'33•'W / .O (Ri �. _../ N19'24'26"E (R) 19 v. 370, N40°59'55"W (R) \\5_41. 58, 23"E (R) .„1171°31'24"W (R)PRC Ito \ 18 CI DATA TABLE OSS 117 CIA til ✓ 1 N0. BRNG/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH 73 in 1 29°33'01" 122.50' 63.18' 111 2 30°31'29" 104.50' 55.67' vARIES'vARIES 3 S48°32'01"W -- 39.09' 16 4 60°52'25" 62.50' 66.40' N o 5 N48°03'38"E -- 37.65' —4 70 6 N00°06'07"E -- 7.26' m 7 26°10'26" 27.50' 12.56' m 8 N48°32'01"E -- 39.25' -4 9 30°37'50" 69.50' 37.16' 10 06'19'31" 157.50' 17.39' 30' I 30' 135 11 13°53'20" 270.00' 65.45' 15 12 S30°25'56"E -- 17.40' 13 13'53'28" 300.00' 72.73' 14 N45'39'20"E -- 0.51' 15 S30°25'56"E 30.00' EXHIBIT 'B' OPEN SPACE (RETENTION BASIN) co c'2 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT cV r) r7 S00'22'27"W PECHANGA MISSION INDIAN RESERVATION SHEET 1 ❑F 1 SHEET CONSULTING PLANNING IN DESIGN ■ CONSTRUCTION 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 400 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-4679 909.676.8042 • FAX 909.676.7240 • wwwRBF.com SEPTEMBER 21, 2001 SCALE 1"=60' FIELD BOOK I 111111 111111 1111 11111 11111 11111 11111111111 2882-078693 02/13/2002 68 GGA 6 of' JOB NO. 15100312-M8 09/25/01 3:54 pm H: \PDATA\15100312\DWG\EXHIBITS\312EX013.DWG Recorded at request of, and return to: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Wolf Valley -Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2 Project No. 7-0-0262 Tract No. 23065 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF TEMECULA, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all right, title and interest in and to easements, situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in: The "flood control easement", as dedicated for construction and maintenance of flood control facilities within Lot 325 as shown on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Map Book 330, Pages 20 through 38 inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as Attachment 1, attached for reference purposes only, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel No. 7262-501 Assessor Parcel No. 962-392-001 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation: Date By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTESTS: Susan W. Jones, MMC, Clerk to the City of Temecula By: City Clerk (SEAL) TRACT 23065 MB 330/20-38 LOT 325 ATTACHMENT 1 1.4 0 0 ,L,,y4N ' 'tom, J t-� VJ,i 9f 0+, 'Y.:'E Vti 6006 v \ � glis• O ` , _ otic FLOOD CONTROL Cn Z ti — FLOOD CONTROL " :ny �l VI Vl EASEMENT }qt:p•m9.03' l59,pq • 91.06' w� ?l0.17• 34J 13, N89.1876'14 1.720.47• <N89.45.50 -W 1320.525 -.sy R `�T STREET Z — R.270.00' C=1lJJii' 1.68.66 N89'1826 -W 1.72047' <2+89.45'50.W 1220 5J'. 0," R.3 '5 aI — 4,89-18 26'W 28.65 [ 480 15' NOT TO SCALE Recorded at request of, and return to: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) SPACE ABOVE TIIIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Wolf Valley -Deer Hollow Way SD Stage 2 Project No. 7-0-0262 Tract No. 23065 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF TEMECULA, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all right, title and interest in and to easements, situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in: The "flood control easement", dedicated for construction and maintenance of flood control facilities within Lot 330 as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Map Book 330, Pages 20 through 38 inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as Attachment 1, attached for reference purposes only, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel No. 7262-502 Assessor Parcel No. 962-430-076 The "flood control easement", dedicated for construction and maintenance of flood control facilities within Lot 330 as shown and dedicated on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Map Book 330, Pages 20 through 38 inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as Attachment 1, attached for reference purposes only, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel No. 7262-503 Assessor Parcel No. 962-430-076 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation: Date By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTESTS: Susan W. Jones, MMC, Clerk to the City of Temecula By: City Clerk (SEAL) TRACT 23065 MB 330/20-38 LOT 330 PUFFIN STREET ATTACHMENT 1 or TY SHEET 1 OF 2 214 215 234 0 232 229222 I. PARCEL 7262-503 R -.UO OO' ROMANCE 330 SEE DETAIL "B" SHEET 2 OF 2 SEE DETAIL "A" SHEET 2 OF 2 ®wl NOT TO SCALE TRACT 23065 MB 330/20-38 LOT 330 12.84' R=270.00' h o d=5'39'35" O L=26.67' co( 330 1V89'31 '25"W 100.00' ATTACHMENT 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 2V NOT TO SCALE FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT DETAIL "B" R-350-00.1_• d=1721 L¢71.14' PARCEL 7262-502 150.00' N89'31'257W 1 cv 30.00' N8047'25"£ 2 45.00' C N 3 h i4 ot 2 30.00' i 30.00' 0 11 v 11 J N88'4725'E O / PARCEL pp 7262-503 330 DETAIL "A" NO 1' 12 :75'W Recorded at request of, and return to: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Wolf Valley-Pechanga Road SD Project No. 7-0-0263 Tract No. 23065 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF TEMECULA, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all right, title and interest in and to easements, situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in: Irrevocable Offer of Dedication recorded November 24, 2004, as Instrument No. 2004-0939761, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel 7263-500 as shown on Exhibits "A" and "B", attached for reference purposes only. Assessor Parcel No. 962-020-001 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation: Date By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTESTS: Susan W. Jones, MMC, Clerk to the City of Temecula By: City Clerk (SEAL) PLEASE COMPLETE THIS INFORMATION RECORDING REOUESTED BY: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FREE RECORDING This instrument is for the benefit of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and should Be recorded without a fee pursuant to Govt. Code 6103. AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501-1770 DOC SS 2004-0939761 11/24/2004 08:00A Fee:NC Page 1 of 7 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside ' Gary .L L. Or. so Assessor County Clerk 8 Recorder M S U PAGE SIZE DA PCOR NOCOR SMF MISC. 1 7 i A R 1 COPY LONG REFUND MHO EXAM Irrevocable Offer of Dedication Title of Document This Document is being re-recorded to include the recording information for the Cooperative Agreement THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION ($3.00 Additional Recording Fee Applies) RECORDERS COVER SHEET.DOC CONSENT TO RECORD (GOV. CODE 7050) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the County of Riverside consents to the recordation of this Irrevocable Offer of Dedication purl nt to a Cooperative Agreement ? recorded on 6 II OO' as Instrument No. 00 01242 60534 AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 1995 MARKET STREET, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) Wolf Valley — Pechanga Creek Levee Protection Project No. 7-0-0263 DOC WI 2004-0777113 09/30/2004 08:00A Fee:NC Page 1 of 6 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Gary L. Orso Assessor, County Clerk & Recorder IIIW 111111 11110 IlIl 011 10111 111111 111 11111 111 111 M S U SIZE DA PCOR NOCOR SMF MISC / �PAA�GE `� r A R L COPY LONG REFUND NCWG EXAM IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC., a California corporation, formerly known as RH Acquisition Co., a California corporation hereby Dedicates in Perpetuity to the Public, on behalf of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, an easement for flood control and drainage purposes for the construction, use, repair, reconstruction, inspection, operation and maintenance of flood control and drainage facilities, and all appurtenant works, including ingress and egress thereto, over, under and across that certain real property situated in the County of Riverside, State of California, described in legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and shown in Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. Dated: 6Q.0emhe.e t � Q.004- REDHAWK COMMUNITIES, INC., a California corporation, formerly known as RH Acquisition Co., a California corporation: By: Paw. GARIT Title: i7R.Bs 1 Ate N T (Notarization forms attached) 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2004-0939781 11/24/2004 08.09R 2 of 7 CC 0 0 C." 0 r- cp@ G N o, u 0) ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of RA4E14 ►OE On SP plernbac t,'Z,Ooy before me, (DAr'E) personally appeared 'Pram Gtai.CCett ..� personally known to me - OR - C. ALLIES Comm. # 1481968 ►A NOTARY PUSLIC•CAtifORNIA vl Riverside Count' My Comm. Expires MAY4,2001 SS. e . A u_o s , NOTARY) SIGNERS) ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY'S SIGNATURE ▪ ■ OPTIONAL INFORMATION The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl- edgment to an unauthorized document. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT ❑ INDIVIDUAL © CORPORATE OFFICER Tt'estael* TITLES) ❑ PARTNER(S) O ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IFS) 1Ze�% plc. 013tnmun►}iesi Unc . ICre\loc&IkC 'eaACA\cn TITLE OR TYPE JF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES �p12r+ -C l , aoo1. DATE OF DOCUMENT RIGHT THUMBPRINT OF SIGNER OTHER Top of thumbprint here APA 5/99 VALLEY -SIERRA, 800-362-3369 CC 0 �0 0)) 0 r` 1. NM GD NN N. RBF CONSULTING 27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400 Temecula, CA. 92591 Revised May 5, 2004 February 2, 2004 JN 15100312-M5 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" RCFC & WCD LEVEE EASEMENT That certain parcel of land situated in the Unincorporated Territory of the County of Riverside, State of California, being that portion of Parcel 19 of Parcel Map 24387 filed in Book 164, Pages 5 through 20 in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the most easterly corner of said Lot 19, said point being in the southerly line of Pechanga Road; thence along said southerly line North 68°35'23" West 257.21 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 30°18'59" West 14.58 feet; thence South 88°52'55" West 27.60 feet; thence South 74°57'27" West 78.71 feet; thence South 81°43'17" West 69.67 feet; thence South 83°15'12" West 52.01 feet; thence South 86°24'29" West 40.32 feet; thence South 70°27'03" West 34.75 feet; thence South 82°50'19" West 40.17 feet; thence South 00°10'03" East 26.74 feet to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 19; thence along said southerly line South 89°49'57" West 120.07 feet; thence continuing along said southerly line North 89°23'55" West 633.74 feet to a point in the northeasterly line of Pala Road as shown on said Parcel Map 24387; IIfflI II IIII VII II iii 2004-0???113 09/3f)/2004 08 O638 :3 of RCFC & WCD Levee Easement Revised May 5, 2004 JN 15100312-M5 Page 2 of 3 thence along said northeasterly line North 43°01'08" West, 14.96 feet to a point in the southerly line of the land describe in Inst. No. 2002-078700 recorded February 13, 2002 of Official Records of said County; thence along said southerly line the following courses; North 70°14'36" East 14.55 feet; thence South 89°50'45" East 159.85 feet; thence South 83°05'46" East 24.26 feet; thence South 88°51'51" East 199.26 feet; thence North 88°0227" East 90.49 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave northwesterly and having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence along said curve northeasterly 81.44 feet through a central angle of 46°39'45"; thence North 41°22'42" East 32.81 feet; thence leaving said southerly line South 13°56'29" East 14.92 feet; thence South 84°29'58" East 90.50 feet; thence North 89°09'46" East 31.70 feet; thence North 86°20'55" East 27.45 feet; thence North 81°1528" East 34.12 feet; thence North 80°14'33" East 87.16 feet; thence North 80°15'04" East 46.13 feet; thence North 83°42'45" East 40.40 feet; thence North 79°53'47" East 37.65 feet; thence North 76°35'27" East 37.76 feet; thence North 77°08'13" East 49.90 feet to a point in said southeasterly line of Pechanga Road; IIffl 11(111 111111 III flI II 1 1E11111 111111 11 o9/39/ -42o07 , EY1flfA Q 0 p 200 0 200 400 600 GRAPHIC SCALE DATA TABLE d BEARING/DELTA RADIUS LENGTH 1 N68'35'23"W - 257.21' 2 N30'18'59"E - 14.58' 3 S88'52'55"W - 27.60' 4 S74'57'27"W - 78.71' 5 S81'43'17"W 69.67' 6 S83'15'12"W - 52.01' 7 S86'24'29'W 40.32' 8 S70'27'03"W - 34.75' 9 S82'50'19"W 40.17' 10 S00'10'03"E - 26.74' 11 S89'49'57"W - 120.07' 12 N89'23'55"W - 633.74' 13 N43'01'08"W - 14.96' 14 N70'14'36"E 14.55' 15 S89'50'45"E 159.85' 16 S83'05'46"E - 24.26' 17 S88'51'51"E - 199.26' c,") 18 N88°02'27"E --90.49' ;r) 19 46'39'45" 100.00' 81.44' 20 N41'22'42"E - 32.81' ,�, 21 S13'56'29"E - 14.92' 22 S84'29'58"E - 90.50' 23 N89'09'46"E - 31.70' 24 N86'20'55"E - 27.45' 25 N81'15'28"E - 34.12' ``. 26 N80'14'33"E - 87.16' 27 N80'15'04"E - 46.13' 'F" 28 N83'42'45"E - 40.40' _ 29 N79'53'47"E --37.65' 1,, 44, 30 N76'35'27"E - 37.76' 31 1477'08'13"E - 49.90'.,. 32 S68'35'23"E - 50.77' '1t r, 4.y�Q ,AND s�� 5 E. VE L vki OSP VEA. �o� NO. LS 5348 EXHIBIT "B"' LEVEE EASEMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET ■ ■ CONSULTING PLANNING ■ DESIGN • CONSTRUCTION 27555 YNEZ ROAD, SUITE 400 TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-4679 909.676.8042 • FAX 809.676.7240 • www.RBF.com REVISED 5/05/04 JANUARY 29, 2004 11 I I 1 SCALE 1"=200' ffl 11 11111 JOB Na 15100312-M5 2004-C477113 Fjy;'30 200,1143 00A 6 of- 6 E n 5/20/04 4:11 DBEECROFT H: \PDATA\15100312\DWG\EXHIBITS\312EX036.DWG Recorded at request of, and return to: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 1995 Market Street Riverside, California 92501 NO FEE (GOV. CODE 6103) SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE Wolf Valley -Vine Street SD Project No. 7-0-0265 Tract No. 23065 The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX $ NONE QUITCLAIM DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the CITY OF TEMECULA, does hereby remise, release, and forever quitclaim to RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT all right, title and interest in and to easements, situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, described in: The "flood control easement", as dedicated for construction and maintenance of flood control facilities within Lot 327 as shown on Tract Map No. 23065, recorded in Map Book 330, Pages 20 through 38 inclusive, records of the Recorder's Office, Riverside County, State of California, as shown as Attachment 1, attached for reference purposes only, to be referenced hereafter as RCFC Parcel No. 7265-500 Assessor Parcel No. 962-400-072 CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation: Date By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTESTS: Susan W. Jones, MMC, Clerk to the City of Temecula By: City Clerk (SEAL) TRACT 23065 MB 330/20-38 LOT 327 DETAIL NOT TO SCALE N83'00' 10' E 327 N62 ! W 0184'44'49Y 104.50' ATTACHMENT 1 50' FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT N44'58'06"W(R) j5z "1-1072 1.41'26* 41'26* N04'1456"E ;ul 23.17' N89'48'371- 135.97' N04'14 56"E 16.70' IY-9d-211'1602' / Da N29'26'31raR21 q 4.es N8718.0420'39'f +fp. c3; Q /r ' 30.00' N84'44'49"E 102.00'(R) 83 N86-46'551" 713.17' N8852'ltW(R) Qa? 84 N NOT TO SCALE Item No. 8 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager ar- CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Improvements and Notice of Completion for Old Town Infrastructure (Town Square, Mercedes and Main Street Improvements), PW06-07 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer David McBride, Senior Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Accept the subject project as complete; 2. Direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion and release the Performance Bond 35 days after the recordation of the Notice of Completion; 3. Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. BACKGROUND: On March 18, 2008, the City Council awarded a construction contact for the subject project to L H Engineering Company, Inc. in the amount of $3,458,495 and authorized the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the contract or $345,849.50. On August 10, 2010, the City Council approved an increase the City Manager's contingency authority of $165,000. The Contractor has completed all work in accordance with the approved plans & specifications, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Since and majority of the work was completed in Summer of 2009, staff believes that waiving the requirement for a one year maintenance bond is appropriate in this case. The retention for this project will be released pursuant to the provisions of Public Contract Code 7107. FISCAL IMPACT: The Old Town Infrastructure (Town Square, Mercedes and Main Street Improvements), PW06-07 is a Capital Improvement Program project and is funded with Redevelopment Agency Bonds Proceeds and Reimbursements from EMWD and RCWD. The original construction contract amount was $3,458,495. Multiple change orders totaling $507,546.29 were issued for a total construction contract amount of $3,966,041.29. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Notice of Completion 2. Contractor's Affidavit and Final Release RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA P.O. Box 9033 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589-9033 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: 1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described. 2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California 92590. 3. The Nature of Interest is a Contract which was awarded by the City of Temecula to L H Engineering Company, Inc., 708 N. Valley Street, Suite Q, Anaheim, CA 92801 to perform the following work of improvement: OLD TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE - TOWN SQUARE and MERCEDES and MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. PW06-07 4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on April 10, 2012. That upon said contract the Sure Tec Insurance Company, 1330 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77056 was surety for the bond given by said company as required by law. 5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: OLD TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE - TOWN SQUARE and MERCEDES and MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. PW06-07 6. The location of said property is: 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Dated at Temecula, California, this 10th day of April. 2012. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside by said City Council. Dated at Temecula, California, this 10th day of April, 2012. City of Temecula Susan W. Jones MMC, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE PROJECT NO. PW06-07 OLD TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT TOWN SQUARE AND MERCEDES & MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS This is to certify that L H Engineering Company, Inc., (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, supplies, labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula, with regard to the building, erection, construction, or repair of that certain work of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW06-07, OLD TOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, TOWN SQUARE AND MERCEDES & MAIN STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS, situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows: Various Streets and the Town Square in Old Town Temecula and Town Square INSERT ADDRESS OR DESCRIBE LOCATION OF WORK The CONTRACTOR declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a Stop Notice against of any unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR. Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby disputes the following amounts: Description Dollar Amount to Dispute Pursuant to Public Contract Code §7100, the CONTRACTOR does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the CONTRACTOR has not disputed above. Dated: CONTRACTOR Print and Titl RELEASE R-IRACIPIPRIXECTSIPW061AA.06-07-1C OTC,C S!mi.:Anew, Specs & EsfimetesIFmel Sp...51'11064g Town Sq & SI Imp Specs.. Item No. 9 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager tor CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Greg Butler, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Award of a Construction Contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Principal Engineer Jon Salazar, Associate Engineer RECOMMENDATION: 1. Award a construction contract for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09 to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of $3,476,502.55; 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency amount of $347,650.26, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount; 3. Make a finding that the Pavement Rehabilitation — Margarita Road Project 2 is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) fees. BACKGROUND: As part of the Capital Improvement Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-11, the City Council approved appropriations to support a Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program that would implement the recommended maintenance activities identified in the previously completed Pavement Management System (PMS) report. The report prioritized the existing areas in need of repairs and identified the recommended method for these repairs. On February 14, 2012 the City Council approved the Plans and Specifications and authorized staff to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2, PW10-09. The work for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Margarita Road Project 2 includes a base bid that consists of full -depth pavement rehabilitation on Margarita Road between Avenida Barca and Solana Way. More specifically, the project will include the following: removal of existing pavement, aggregate base, and subgrade structural section to a depth of 1.50 feet; placement of a 1.10 foot thick Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) section with Geogrid/Fabric; construction of a 0.25 foot thick Asphalt Concrete (AC) section; construction of a 0.15 foot thick Asphalt Rubber Hot Mix (ARHM) section; adjustment of various facilities to grade, installation of traffic striping, pavement markings, and legends; and miscellaneous appurtenant work. The project also included three Additive Bids (1, 2 and 3) to rehabilitate the Margarita Community Park parking lot. Each additive bid described a different method for the rehabilitation. Staff included three different methods to select the one with the bid amount that is compatible with available budget to do the parking lot. Due to the favorable bids received, Additive Bid No. 1, which involves fully grinding and overlaying the existing parking lot, has been selected. Of the three methods, it is the one with the best durability and longevity. On March 15, 2012 three bids were electronically opened and publicly posted on the City's on- line bidding service, PlanetBids. The results for the base bids were as follows: 1. R.J. Noble Company $3,356,496.70 2. Hardy & Harper, Inc. $3,727,000.00 Silvia Construction Non -Responsive Staff has deemed the bid submitted by Silvia Construction as non-responsive due to the fact that the City did riot receive their original bid bond within the 24-hour period as required by the Project Specifications, "Notice Inviting Bids", Section 7, "Instructions to Bidders", Section 2, and "Proposal", Item No. "i." Pursuant to the Instructions to Bidders, bids will be compared on the basis of the base bid only. Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found R.J. Noble Company to be the lowest responsible bidder. R.J. Noble Company has public contracting experience and has completed similar projects for the City and other agencies. The total bid amount for the base bid plus the selected additive bid is $3,476,502.55. The specifications allow for a schedule of 90 working days, which is an approximate duration of 5 months. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Margarita Road Project 2 was $3,955,000 for the base bid and $245,700 for Additive Bid No. 1 The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) Fee Remittance and Collection Policy adopted by Resolution 07-04 on September 10, 2007. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Beginning July 1, 2008 the RCA required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90 -days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. The Pavement Rehabilitation — Margarita Road Project 2 involves reconstruction of an existing roadway, and Parking lot entirely within the original paved areas, therefore there is no new disturbed area subject to the 5% MSHCP fees, and the project is thus exempt. FISCAL IMPACT: The Citywide Pavement Rehabilitation Program is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2012-16 with funding from Measure A and Capital Projects Reserves. Adequate funds are available in the project accounts to construct the project. The work to rehabilitate the Margarita Community Park parking lot will be funded with Capital Project Reserves from the Parks Improvement Program. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description Sheets 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 2 (AVENIDA BARCA TO SOLANA WAY} PROJECT NO. PW10-09 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 10th day of April, 2012 by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and R.J. Noble Company, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR." WITNESSETH: That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: 1. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 2 (AVENIDA BARCA TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-09, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications, (latest edition), issued by the California Department of Transportation, where specifically referenced in the Plans, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 2 (AVENIDA BARCA TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-09. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 1612 South Clementine St. Anaheim, California 92802 (714) 517-0970 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 2 (AVENIDA BARCA TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-09. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following: PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - MARGARITA ROAD PROJECT 2 (AVENDIA BARCA TO SOLANA WAY), PROJECT NO. PW10-09 All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: THREE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWO DOLLARS and FIFTY FIVE CENTS ($3,476,502.55), the total amount of the base bid plus Additive Bid No 1. CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed "Ninety" (90) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS A. LUMP SUM BID SCHEDULE: Before submittal of the first payment request, the CONTRACTOR shall submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's payment requests. B. UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE: Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be paid a sum equal to ninety-five percent (95%) of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms provided by the CITY. C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project is more than 50% complete. The Council hereby delegates its authority to reduce the retention to the Engineer. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES — EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, CONTRACTOR shall give written notice to CITY. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, CONTRACTOR shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to CITY. CONTRACTOR'S failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute CONTRACTOR'S waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against CITY. 8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California Department of Industrial Relation's Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $50.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone. CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY OF TEMECULA, SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR shall defend and indemnify (including the appointment of competent defense counsel) the CITY from any claims, demands, legal proceedings, writs of mandate, and the like, initiated by any third parties challenging the award of this Contract to the CONTRACTOR. 12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY. 17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers. CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or will administer this project shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101- 336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the CITY addressed as follows: Mailing Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Street Address: Greg Butler Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590-3606 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED: CONTRACTOR R.J. Noble Company 15505 East Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92865-6620 (714) 637-1550 By: Steve Mendoza Secretary By: Craig Porter Vice President (Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) DATED: CITY OF TEMECULA By: Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney DB 2011-12 2015-16 CITY OF 7EMECULA PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM—CITYWIDE Circulation Project Project Description: Project will include the environmental processing, design, construction of pavement rehabilitation, and reconstruction of major streets as recommended in the Pavement Management System. Benefit: Project will improve pavement conditions so that the transportation needs of the public, business industry, and government can be met. Project Status: This project is ongoing. Department: Public Works—Account No. 210.165.655 Priority: I Project Cost: Actua Is to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Total Project Years Cost Administration $ 49,076 $ 309,606 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 998, 682 Construction Reserves $8,931,000 $4,570,000 $ 4,570,000 $ 4,570,000 $4,570,000 $27,211,000 Construction Measure A $244,017 $8,682,022 $1,191,157 $1,214,980 $1,239,280 Engineering Unspecified* $ 98,645 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 3,770,720 $ 298,645 Design $194,941 $ 168,897 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $ 230,000 $5,010,000 $ 1,283,838 Totals $244,017 $9,508,148 $ 5,010,000 - $ 5,010,000 $ 5,010,000 $ 5,010,000 $ - $29,792,165 Actuals Future Total Project Source of Funds: to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Years Cost Capital Project Reserves $ 826,126 $5,010,000 $ 5,836,126 Measure A $244,017 $8,682,022 $1,191,157 $1,214,980 $1,239,280 $12,571,456 Unspecified* $ 3,818,843 $ 3,795,020 $ 3,770,720 $ 11,384,583 Total Funding: $244,017 $9,508,148 $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $ - $29,792,165 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs: 2012-13 2013-14 Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identifed. 63 2014-15 2011-12 2015-16 2013-14 7;014,C#C1/1/&0& City of PARKS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Parks and Recreation Project Project Description: Rehabilitation and maintenance of parks sites to include fiscal year 2011-12 Skate Park sewer lift system, Ronald Reagan Sports Park lower parking lot fence replacement and drainage repairs, Pala Community Park fiscal year 2013-14 tennis courts resurfacing and lighting upgrades, Margarita Community Park channel reinforcement and fiscal year 2012-13 parking lot repairs, Loma Linda Park concrete repairs, Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park parking lot repairs, Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park erosion and fence repairs, Harveston Community Park drainage repairs and parking lot resurfacing and restriping, and fence replacement. Benefit: Protect the City's vast investment in parks and open space facilities. Project Status: This project has not yet started. Department: Temecula Community Services Account No. 210.190.130 Priority: Project Cost: Actuals to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Future Total Years Project Cost Construction $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 1,350,000 Totals $ - $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ - $ 1,350,000 Source of Funds: Actuals Future Total to Date 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Years Project Cost Capital Project Reserves $250,000 $250,000 $ 500,000 Quimby $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 Unspecified* $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ 750,000 Total Funding: $ - $300,000 $300,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $ - $ 1,350,000 Future Operation & Maintenance Costs 2012-13 2014-15 *Project cannot be constructed until a funding source is identified. 139 N/A THE CITY OF Itr = TEMECULA 19. "Old Traditions, New Opportunities" 0 Margarita Road Project 2 AVENIDA=CIMA=DELSOL 41 0 ar Ap ilk 03 en 11111111k4,' • 1=1 ON it at CHURCH�ILLICTII 10 LONG-VALLEY=DR- �— ORI-��►-Ra ° �� n 111 CALIF^ RAN�H� • 71' Air 'w1111111riffisx, LTi r� 1000 2000 3000 ft. Map center: 6290359, 2131663 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. Legend - City Streets Parcels Scale: 1:10,658 Item No. 10 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Por frAi CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: 19' Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party - Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events (at the request of Mayor Washington) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the expenditure of funds in the amount of $7,500 for Fiscal Year 2011- 12 for event costs to include rentals of tables/chairs and entertainment for the 1s' Annual Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party - Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events on June 9, 2012; 2. Approve city -support costs for the event in the amount of $1,000; 3. Authorize that all proceeds from the event be awarded to the Temecula Rotary Club Military Project which is a program that provides support and social services to military personnel and their families who reside in Temecula. BACKGROUND: In an effort to provide the community and families an enjoyable kick-off to the City's summer events, City staff in concert with Mayor Washington have discussed the introduction of a new special event entitled the Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party. The proposed event would be held on Saturday, June 9, 2012, from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Promenade Mall in the newly developed Main Street on private property. Forest City Development (owners of Promenade Mall) has agreed to host the event at no cost in conjunction with participation from mall tenants and offered the free use of stage, sound and lighting. The event would entail craft opportunities for children, a dunk tank, prize wheel, surf dogs, food, & live entertainment. Partners/Organizers of the event are donating all in-kind marketing, staff time and Temecula Rotary will be providing volunteers to work the event. All restaurants at the Promenade Mall will be given an opportunity to showcase and provide in-kind food for patrons. Ticketing for the event has been suggested to be $20/family of four or $5 per person to attend. All proceeds from the event will be benefitting the Temecula Rotary Club Military Project which is a program designed to provide support and social services to military personnel and their families who reside in Temecula ranging from a date night out with babysitting to assistance with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Mayor's Beach Ball Block Party - Celebrating Temecula's Summer Events is envisioned to be hosted each year by the Mayor and will become a prelude to many cherished and popular Community Services events. This summer, the City will be offering once again Movies in the Park program on Friday nights (5 weeks), Family Activities on Mondays (FAM) at the Community Recreation Center (7 weeks), Summer Concert Series at the CRC amphitheater on Thursdays (9 weeks), and Hot Summer Nights in Old Town on Friday's (9 weeks). FISCAL IMPACT: Event costs in the amount of $7,500 will be funded through Economic Development and Community Services line items for Fiscal Year 2011-12. City support costs in the amount of $1,000 will be funded through the Recreation line item. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Item No. 11 ACTION MINUTES of March 27, 2012 City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS • Stephen Eldred • Evelyn Honea CSD CONSENT CALENDAR 10 Action Minutes — Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0-2) Director Washington made the motion; it was seconded by Director Edwards; and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval, with Directors Naggar and Roberts abstaining. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Approve the action minutes of March 13, 2012. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 8:56 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 5:30 P.M., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 7:00 PM., City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, President ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] PUBLIC HEARING Item No. 12 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager gtd CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Richardson, Director of Planning and Development DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Draft 2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan which includes the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding recommendations for Fiscal Year 2012-13 PREPARED BY: Dana Weaver, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN (2012-2016) AND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (2012- 2013) AS AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 BACKGROUND: Each year the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funds to local jurisdictions through the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) for the development of viable communities. CDBG funds are used to benefit low- and moderate -income residents through the funding of non-profit service providers and capital expenditure projects that create decent housing, establish a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities. Regulations governing the CDBG program and the distribution of funds require that each activity undertaken with CDBG funds meet one of the following three broad national objectives: o Benefit people with low and moderate incomes o Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight o Meet an urgent need (such as earthquake, flood, or hurricane relief) Since 1992, the City of Temecula has participated in the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (EDA) Urban County Entitlement program in order to receive annual CDBG funding. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted a resolution (Resolution No. 11-42) to request that HUD designate the City of Temecula as an Entitlement City. As an Entitlement City, the City of Temecula will receive annual CDBG funds directly from HUD and will be responsible for all the grant administration. To obtain entitlement status HUD requires that the City develop and submit a Five-year Consolidated Plan that establishes goals for the use of CDBG funds, and Annual Action Plan that guides the yearly use of CDBG funds and identifies the specific activities to be undertaken by the City during each fiscal year. SUMMARY OF CONSOLIDATED PLAN: The Consolidated Plan consists of various components that assess the City's current housing market, analyze demographic, ethnic, and socio-economic conditions, and identify populations within the City who have the greatest community and housing needs, including seniors, families, persons who are homeless or at -risk of homelessness, and persons with disabilities. It also defines the City's priority needs, strategies, and objectives for reducing the most prevalent barriers to housing and services in our community. The Consolidated Plan is designed to be a collaborative process whereby community input is gathered and utilized to establish effective housing and community development strategies that respond to the needs of the community. Based on input gathered from the public, the City has identified the following high priorities and objectives for allocating CDBG funds: o Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. o Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low- and moderate -income neighborhoods and residents. o Provide and improve access to public services for low- and moderate -income persons and those with special needs. o Provide for the economic development needs of low- and moderate -income persons and neighborhood target areas. In addition to these goals, the Annual Action Plan contains a complete list of non-profit service providers and capital projects that are recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2012-13 and an outline of the process used to develop these recommendations. PUBLIC OUTREACH: The Consolidated plan regulations require that jurisdictions set forth policies and procedures to encourage citizen participation (and particularly participation by persons of low- or moderate -incomes) during the development of these plans and during the overall administration of the City's CDBG program. Temecula's Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan were developed with a strong emphasis on community input. The City provided a number of opportunities for public input including surveys, public meetings and focus groups, email and newspaper notices, and the 30 -day draft public review and comment period. All public comments provided to the City either verbally or in writing will be included in the appendices of the document when submitted to HUD for final approval. FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 FUNDING: The City's allocation for Fiscal Year 2012-13 is anticipated to be $475,558. A maximum of 20 percent ($95,112) may be allocated for staff administration of the Program which leaves $380,446 remaining for capital project and public service funding. According to CDBG regulations, a maximum 15 percent of the allocation may be allocated to public services. The City also has an estimated remaining balance of $1,081,588 from prior year allocations which is currently held by the County EDA. EDA has agreed to transfer these funds to the City for use for public facilities in this Fiscal Year. The City invited applications for funding from non-profit agencies. A total of ten applications were submitted to the City for funding consideration and all were determined to meet HUD's national objectives for CDBG funding eligibility. Additionally, three public facilities projects, identified as high priorities in the City's Five-year Consolidated Plan, were determined to be eligible for funding. Those three projects are the Temecula Community Center (TCC) Rehabilitation, a Supportive/Transitional Housing Facility, and Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement. The Finance Committee, composed of Mayor Chuck Washington and Mayor Pro Tem Mike Naggar, met on February 28, 2012. After thorough review, the Finance Committee proposed CDBG funding for five public service organizations, and all three high priority public facilities projects. As summarized in the following table, the Finance Committee is recommending a total expenditure of $57,000 for public services and $1,400,000 for public facilities. Fiscal Year 2012-13 CDBG ALLOCATION FUNDING CATEGORY FUNDING ALLOCATION Program Administration $ 95,112 Public Services (15% cap) $ 57,000 Public Facilities $1,400,000 • TCC Rehab • $1,200,000 • Supportive/Transitional Housing • $ 150,000 • Sam Hicks Rehab • $ 50,000 In the event that the City's allocation is reduced or increased, it is recommended that all projects be reduced or increased equally, according to the percentage in allocation reduction or increase. FISCAL IMPACT: The timely submittal of the Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan to HUD enables the City to become eligible to receive and distribute approximately $475,558 in entitlement funds for Fiscal Year 2012-13. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. CDBG Public Service Applications Summary for Fiscal Year 2012-13 Funding Cycle 3. Finance Committee Funding Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 4. Draft Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN (2012-2016) AND THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN (2012-2013) AS AN APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR FUNDING UNDER THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. A. The City currently receives federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds through an intergovernmental agreement with Riverside County, which is a US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) designated Entitlement Community; B. The City's intergovernmental agreement with Riverside County expires June 30, 2012, and the City is eligible to become an Entitlement City; C. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-42 on June 14, 2011 initiating the City to obtain entitlement community status from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and authorized the Director of Planning to prepare and return for City Council approval all documents required for the designation as an entitlement city, including a Five-year Consolidated Plan, an Action Plan, a Citizen Participation Plan, an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, and a Community Development Needs Assessment; D. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-78 on November 1, 2011, approving a Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for citizen participation in the development of its Five-year Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, Annual Performance Reports, and any substantial amendments deemed necessary for direct administration of federal CDBG funds. E. The Five-year Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan are required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and must be approved by that agency for the City to receive federal CDBG funds each year. F. The Annual Action Plan includes HUD entitlement funding and the proposed use of federal CDBG funds for the upcoming Fiscal Year 2012-13. Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds, determines and declares A. Pursuant to Title 24, Housing and Urban Development, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subtitle A Office of the Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Part 91 Consolidated Submissions For Community Planning And Development Programs (24 CFR Part 91) each entitlement jurisdiction must adopt a Five-year Consolidated Plan that states its overall plan to develop a viable urban community by providing for decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate -income persons; and B. The City Council must adopt a plan that serves the following functions: 1. A planning document for the jurisdiction, which builds on a participatory process among citizens, organizations, businesses, and other stakeholders; 2. A submission for federal funds under HUD's formula grant programs for jurisdictions; 3. A strategy to be followed in carrying out HUD programs; and 4. A management tool for assessing performance and tracking results. C. On April 10, 2012, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Five-year Consolidated Plan and considered all of the comments made on the proposed Five-year Consolidated Plan. Section 3. The proposed action on the Five-year Consolidated Plan (2012- 2016), the Annual Action Plan (2012-2013) is exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) pursuant to the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and specifically 24 CFR 58.34(a)(1) because the Five Year Consolidated Plan and CDBG funding recommendations are resource identification studies and the development of plans and strategies for the prioritization and funding of proposed programs through CDBG and the proposed action involves the feasibility and planning studies to determine prioritization and CDBG funding to begin the development of certain projects. The potential projects discussed in the proposed actions that might involve physical activity will be reviewed under NEPA or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the development of those projects. The proposed action is also exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 and 15378(b)(4). Section 4. The City Council hereby approves the Five-year Consolidated Plan (2012-2016), the Annual Action Plan (2012-2013), and any and all other documents deemed necessary by HUD to obtain the direct allocation of the federal CDBG funds and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest to the execution of these documents. Section 5. . The City Council hereby approves an application for CDBG Entitlement funds in the amount of $475,558; the allocation of the CDBG current year program administration of $95,112; the allocation of the CDBG current year program income of $380,446; the reprogramming of CDBG carryover funds in the amount of $1,081,588 for a total of $1,557,146 for the 2012-2013 CDBG program activities; Section 6. Council Member Edwards did not participate in the Council discussion concerning the Old Town Gymnasium potential project and abstained from the approval of the Five-year Consolidated Plan (2012-2016), the Annual Action Plan (2012-2013) and CDBG Allocations because she is the Executive Director of the Boys and Girl's Club, an IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization serving the applicable communities, that will be a possible participant in the Project. Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10th day of April, 2012. Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 10th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, MMC City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA CDBG APPLICATION SUMMARY FY 2012-13 FUNDING CYCLE Assistance League of Temecula Valley Operation School Bell $ 10,000 Provision of clothing and supplies for children. Clothing for children Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County Before and After School Care for Kids $ 10,000 Before and after school care for underserved low-income youth. Scholarships CASA for Riverside County Advocacy for Abused, Neglected and Abandoned Children $ 21,754 Support services for 15 at - risk foster children in Temecula. Staff salaries Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Fair Housing (Anti- discrimination) and Landlord/Tenant Counseling $ 20,000 Fair housing education, training, & enforcement programs for low-income households. Staff salaries and benefits, rent, supplies, and utility costs GRID Alternatives Solar Affordable Housing Program $ 12,500 Provide solar electric systems to 5 low-income homeowners. Solar equipment and materials Medical Resources International Group Inc. Women Wellness Weekend $ 70,000 Provide female wellness examinations to uninsured and underinsured woman. Supplies, equipment, advertising, and salaries Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (SAFE) Domestic Violence Services Program $ 12,000 Provision of services for at - risk youth and families to avoid violence and abuse. Staff salaries and benefits Senior Citizens Service Center Emergency Food/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $ 10,000 Provision of food and supplies to low-income families. Rent and food products Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) Expanded SMURF Childcare Program $ 12,400 Provide expanded childcare developmental curriculum for underserved low-income youth. Educational and developmental supplies and staff salaries Temecula Murrieta Pantry Temecula Community Pantry $ 10,000 Food, clothing, & counseling services to homeless and low-income families. Insurance, utilities, and staff salaries TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES REQUESTS $ 188,654 Note: HUD requires funding Public Service requests with a minimum of $10,000 cumulative between all agency CDBG funds. It is anticipated that the City will be funding 50 percent of the above applicants for fiscal year 2012-13. CITY OF TEMECULA FINANCE COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS CDBG FY 2012-13 PUBLIC SERVICES FY 2011-12 Funding Award FY 2012-13 Funding Request FY 2012-13 Funding Recommendation Assistance League of Temecula Valley Operation School Bell $ 3,959 $ 10,000 $ 11,400 Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County Before and After School Care 5,919 $ 10,000 $ 11,400 Safe Alternatives For Everyone, Inc. Domestic Violence Services Program $ 11,798 $ 12,000 $ 11,400 Senior Citizen Service Center Emergency Assistance Program $ 7,878 $ 10,000 $ 11,400 Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) SMURF Childcare Program $0 $ 12,400 $ 11,400 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICES $ 29,554 $ 54,400 $ 57,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES Temecula Community Center Rehab $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Supportive/Transitional Housing $0 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Sam Hicks Park Rehab $0 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 TOTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES $1,400,000 $1,400,000 GRAND TOTAL $1,457,000 Draft Report FY2012-2016 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Draft Report February 8, 2012 City of Temecula FY2012-216 Five-year Consolidated Plan and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Prepared for City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 1999 Broadway, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com B B RESEARCH & CONSULTING Table of Contents Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis Section Summary 1-1 City Demographics 1-2 Household Characteristics 1-8 Income 1-10 EmpIoynent 1-14 Housing Profile 1-17 Housing Affordability 1-19 11. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input Findings 11-1 Stakeholder Survey Participant Profile 11-2 Resident Survey Participant Profile 11-3 Resident Perspectives on Housing in Temecula 11-6 Temecula Housing and Community Development Needs 11-11 Fair Housing 11-15 111. Strategic Plan IV. Year One Action Plan V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Protected Class Concentrations V-3 Public Input V-10 Housing and Land Use Policy Review V-1 4 Affordable Development V-20 Fair Lending Analysis V-21 Complaints and Legal Review V-26 Fair Housing Impediments, Recommendations and Action Plan V-30 Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Fair Housing Action Plan V-31 Appendices A. Citizen Participation Plan A-1 B. CDBG Service Application B-1 C. HUD Needs Tables and Required Forms C-1 D. Open -Ended Survey Reponses and Public Comments D-1 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I. Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis SECTION I. Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis This section begins with an overview of demographics in Temecula, including population levels, economic and household characteristics and employment of residents to set the context of the Consolidated Plan. The housing market analysis discusses the conditions of housing in the city in terms of supply, demand, condition, and cost and affordability. The housing market analysis contains the information required for the Consolidated Plan by Section 91.210 of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's (HUD) Consolidated Plan regulations (housing market analysis). Section Summary • Temecula experienced strong population growth (73%) from 2000 to 2010. On average the city gained approximately 4,200 residents each year, reaching 100,097 in 2010. Most Temecula residents (57%) are non -Hispanic white. The city has a lower proportion of Hispanic residents than Riverside County and the state of California as a whole. • Overall, the City of Temecula is relatively young, well educated and affluent. Even so, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled between 2000 and 2010, from 7 percent to 14 percent— perhaps reflective of the economic downturn. • Of Temecula's 42,540 employed residents, 53 percent work outside Riverside County. Forty- three percent commute to jobs in Los Angeles, Orange or San Diego counties. • Between 2000 and 2010 median rent and median home value in Temecula increased faster than resident incomes. Thus, both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. • Temecula's median rent in 2010 was relatively high at $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city's renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. Forty-three percent of Temecula residents (33% of renters) can afford the city's 2010 median home value of $289,800. • There is a shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula -45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 units affordable to these renters (11% of all rental units) leaving a gap of 3,177 units. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 1 City Demographics Population. According to the 2010 Census, the City of Temecula has 100,097 residents and accounts for 5 percent of Riverside County's population. Since 1990 Temecula's population has grown steadily at a compound annual growth rate of 6.8 percent through 2010. The Western Riverside Council of Governments projects continued population growth through 2020 but at a much lower rate. Figure 1-1. Population Trend, City of Temecula, 2000-2010 Source: California State demographer and Western Riverside Council d Governments (WRCOG). Percent Total Growth from Previous Population Period Compound Annual Growth Rate from Previous Period 1990 2 2000 5 7, 716 113% 2005IMEIPM.r- 37% 2010 100,097 27% 4.9% 2020 projection 112,242= 12% 1.2% Race and ethnicity. It should be noted that Census data on race and ethnic identification vary with how people choose to identify themselves. The U.S. Census Bureau treats race and ethnicity separately: the Bureau does not classify Hispanic/Latino as a race, but rather as an identification of origin and ethnicity. The 2010 Census changed the race question slightly, which may have encouraged respondents to check more than one racial category. According to the Census, in both 2000 and 2010 over 95 percent of Hispanic residents identified their race as White, Some Other Race or Two or More Races. In 2010, the largest racial group in Temecula was white (71%), followed by Asian (at a much lower 10%). The slight majority of Temecula residents (57%) were non -Hispanic white and approximately one-quarter were of Hispanic origin. Figure I-2 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of Temecula in 2000 and 2010. PAGE 2, SECTION! BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure 1-2. Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecu Ia, 2000 and 2010 Source: 20x)0 Census and 2010 Census. 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Perces" Total population 57,716 100 100,097 100 Race American Indian and Alaska Native 497 0.9% Asian 2,728 4.7% EBlack or African American 1,974 3.4% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 174 0.3% 1,079 9,765 4,132 368 9.8% 0.4% White 45,555 78.9% 70,880 Some Other Race 4,276 7.4% 7,928 Two or More Races 2,512 4.4% 5,945 70.8% 7.9% 5.9% Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino Non -Hispanic White 40,007 69.3% 57,246 57.2% The population proportion of all minority groups increased in between 2000 and 2010, while the non -Hispanic white population proportion dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent. One of the key components of a demographic analysis is an examination of the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences—e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities. According to HUD, an area of racial and ethnic concentration (also called a "minority impacted area") is defined as where the percentage of persons in a particular race or ethnic group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category for the city as a whole. Using the above definition of concentration, block groups in Temecula have a concentration if the following exists: • A non -Hispanic white population proportion of 77 percent and more; • A Hispanic population proportion of 45 percent and more; • An Asian population proportion of 30 percent and more; and • A black or African American population proportion of 24 percent and more. Figure I-3 shows the percentage of non -Hispanic white residents within each block group in the city. There are no block groups within city boundaries that are 77 percent or more non -Hispanic white; however one block group immediately east of Temecula is non -Hispanic white -concentrated. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 3 Figure 1-3. Percent of Non -Hispanic White Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend ® City of Temecula Less than 5009E 50.096 to ]]016 Morethan 77.09a Figure I-4 shows the percentage of persons of Hispanic descent by block group in Temecula. As the map demonstrates, there no block groups in the city with Hispanic concentrations. Figure 1-4. Percent of Hispanic/Latino Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend City of Temecula Less than 20.096 — 20095 t04506 _ Morethan 45.096 J PAGE 4, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure I-5 shows the proportion of Asian residents by block group in the city. There is one block group in the southwestern portion of the city with a concentration of Asian residents. Figure 1-5. Percent of Asian Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Le9entl City of Temecula Less than 15.0% _ 15.0% to 30.0% Greater than 30.0% Figure I-6 shows the proportion of African Americans by block group in the city. There are no block groups with concentrations of African Americans. Figure 1-6. Percent of Population that is African American, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend Cry o&Temecula Less than 12.0% ME 12.096 to 20.0% =I More than 24.0% adoate BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 5 Citizenship status. According to the 2010 ACS, the vast majority of Temecula residents -86 percent—are U.S. citizens born in the United States or born abroad to American parents. Eight percent were born outside of the U.S. and are now citizens; 6 percent are not U.S. citizens. This is much lower than Riverside County, where approximately 13 percent of residents are not U.S. citizens and California as a whole, where 15 percent of residents are not U.S. citizens. Age. The median age of the residents in the City of Temecula was 31.3 years in 2000. In 2010, the median age was 33.4, a two-year increase from 2000. Both the city and county (33.7 years) had lower median ages than the state, which was 35.2 years, according to the 2010 Census. The median age of the Hispanic population of Temecula is 25.6-12 years younger than the non - Hispanic white population (37.5). In Riverside County, the median age is 25.4 for Hispanic residents and 46.1 for non -Hispanic white residents. The Census divides the population into a series of age categories or "cohorts". Figure I-7 presents the distribution of the population by age in Temecula, as well as the growth rate between 2000 and 2010. Figure 1-7. Distribution of Population by Age, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2(x)0 Census and 2010 Census. Percent 2000 2010 Change Number Percent Number Percent Since 2000 Under 5 years 5 to 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 years . • er 5,115 9% 7,053 14,917 26% 23,637 24% 4,486 8% 9,317 9% 7,811 14% 12,003 12% 11,392 20% 15,866 16% 6,717 12% 15,686 16% 3,183 6% 9% 2,526 4% 4,482 4% 7% 3% 38% 58% 108% 54% 39% 134% 77% The age cohorts with the fastest growth between 2000 and 2010 were adults aged 55 to 64 ("baby boomers") and 45 to 54. This is followed by those aged 75 years and older and then young adults (18 to 24). Like many communities across the U.S., Temecula has an aging population which may impact community composition, social service provision and housing needs and preferences in the near future. PAGE 6, SECTION 1 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Persons with disabilities. The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Temecula residents had a disability. By 2010, the percent of residents with a disability had dropped to 10 percent. The prevalence of disability decreased in each age cohort between 2000 and 2010, most dramatically in residents aged 18-34 (12% in 2000 to 5% in 2010). Figure 1-8. Disability by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Age Cohort Percent Percent of Age with Estimate Group Disabilities Under 5 years 161 2% 5 to 17 years 1,609 7% 18 to 34 years 1,089 5% 35 to 64 years 3,745 10% 65 to 74 years 1,256 36% 2% 17% 12% 40% 13% 75 years and over 1,514 47% 16% Total 9,374 9% 100% The likelihood of disability increases with age and thus the distribution of disabilities is typically a function of a city's age profile. Of the 9,374 persons with disabilities in Temecula, 30 percent were seniors, up from 26 percent in 2000. Figure I-9 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities in Temecula by block group as of 2000, the latest date of availability. A block group is concentrated when 33 percent of residents in a block group have a disability (based on the 2000 Census disability proportion for the city). There are no block groups with concentrations of persons with disabilities. However, the map indicates that block groups in the center of Temecula have a higher proportion of persons with disabilities. Figure 1-9. Percent of Population with Disabilities, City of Temecula, 2000 Source: U.S. Census 2000 and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend City of Temecula Less than 17095 'rt 1/O% to 330% _ More than 33.0% The 2010 ACS estimates the presence of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Of persons with disabilities who are working age (18 to 64), about half were not in the labor force, 37 percent were employed and 12 percent were unemployed. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 7 Household Characteristics As discussed previously, Temecula has experienced significant population growth since 1990. Growth in the number of households in Temecula was similar, doubling between 1990 and 2000 and increasing by another 74 percent the following decade. By 2010, there were 31,800 households in Temecula. Household size. The average household size (3.15) in Temecula did not change between 2000 and 2010. As is typical, the average household size of renters in Temecula is slightly smaller (3.07) than the average household size of owners (3.18). Large households, defined by the Census as having five or more persons in a household, made up 18 percent of the total occupied households in 2010. The proportion of large households has not changed substantially since 2000, but the share of renter occupied households with five or more persons increased froml4 percent to 19 percent. Large households can have unique housing needs because of the limited housing stock to serve them especially rental housing stock as well as landlords' lack of support and understanding of familial status protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act. The map in Figure I-10 examines the location of large households within the city. Concentrated block groups are those in which large households make up more than 38 percent of total households. Although there are no concentrated block groups in Temecula, block groups on the outskirts of the city tend to have higher percentages of large households. Figure 1-10. Percentage of Large Households by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. City or Temecula Less than 20.0% W 200%to 38.0% _ More than 38.096 PAGE 8, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Familial status. In 2010, half of all households in Temecula were families with children. Of these 15,806 households with children, 77 percent were husband -wife families and 23 percent were single parent households. Figure I-11 displays the city's 2010 household composition. Figure 1-11. Household Composition, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not appear to aggregate correctly. Source: 2010 Census. Number Percent Total household 31,781 1000/0 Nonfamily households 5,955 19% Family households 25,826 Husband -wife families 20,483 With children 72,747 Without children 8,342 Female householder, no husband present 3,763 With children 2,632 Without children 1,131 Male householder, no wife present 1,580 With children 7,033 Without children 547 81% 64% 38% 26% 12% 8% 4% 5% 3% 2% Single parent households especially those with single mothers have some of the highest rates of poverty in most communities. As such, they have needs for social services (child care, transportation) and affordable housing. Familial status is also a protected class under fair housing law and, in many communities, one of the most common reasons for fair housing complaints. Single parent households are therefore vulnerable to fair housing discrimination and often have fewer choices in the housing market because of their lower income levels. Approximately 8 percent of all households in Temecula are female -headed households with children. Based on the same definition of concentration as in the racial and ethnicity maps, Figure I-12 shows that there are no concentrations of female -headed households with children in the city. Figure 1-12. Percentage of Female - Headed Households with Children by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend City &Temecula Less than 14.0% 14.0%to280% More than 28.0% BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 9 Subfamilies. The Census also reports data on "subfamilies," which are defined as married -couple, mother -child or father -child families who reside with relatives. Subfamily relationships are thought to have increased with the downturn in the housing market, as families double -up to achieve greater affordability or because they have lost their homes to foreclosure. In 2010, there were 740 subfamilies and 2,469 persons in subfamilies in the City of Temecula, representing 2.5 percent of the total population. Most of the subfamilies (72%) consisted of married couple sub -families; the remaining 28 percent were single -parent subfamilies. Linguistically isolated. The ACS 2005-2009 five-year estimates provide the most recent linguistic isolation data for the City of Temecula. Linguistically isolated households are defined as households where no member of the household 14 years and older speaks English only or speaks English "very well." In Temecula, 1,006 households were linguistically isolated in 2005-2009, or 3.5 percent of all households in the city. Most of the city's linguistically isolated households (57%) were Spanish- speaking households; 34 percent were Asian and Pacific Island speaking households. Income The median household income for the City of Temecula was $70,194 in 2010—higher than both Riverside County and the state of California. Figure I-13 shows the median household income for 2000, 2005 and 2010. The figure provides actual year dollar amounts and the dollar amounts adjusted for inflation. Although income levels have increased in dollar amount, actual purchasing power has declined since 2000. Figure I-13 Median Household Income, 2000, City of Temecula, 2005 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census, 2005 American Community Survey, 2010 American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. 2000- 2000 2005 2010 2010 Temecu la Riverside County California $ 59,516 $ 42,887 $ 47,493 $ 67,903 $ 52,253 $ 53,629 $ 70,194 18% $ 54,296 27% $ 57,708 22% Adjusted for inflation (shown in 2010 dollars) Temecula = $ 75,365 * $ 75,815 $ 70,194 -6.9% Riverside County $ 54,308 $ 58,341 $ 54,296 0.0% California $ 60,140 I $ 59,878 $ 57,708 -4.0% For many of its low and moderate income housing grant programs, including Community Development Block Grants, HUD classifies households by the Area Median Income (AMI).' HUD does not report an AMI for the City of Temecula, so income classifications are made according to the county -wide AMI. According to HUD, the AMI for Riverside County in 2011 was $62,500 (based on a household size of four). The following classifications use AMI to define income levels according to HUD's categorization: • Extremely low -30 percent and less of AMI ($18,750 and less); • Very low -31 to 50 percent of AMI ($18,751 to $31,250); 1 This may also be referred to as Median Family Income or MFI. PAGE 10, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING • Low and moderate 51 to 80 percent of AMI ($31,251 to $50,000); • Above low and moderate 80 percent and above of AMI (more than $50,000); Figure I-14 shows the percentage of Temecula families within each AMI category. The largest proportion of families in Temecula 69 percent were considered "above low and moderate income," earning more than $50,000. These families would likely not qualify for HUD -funded programs. Eleven percent of families have "extremely low" income and the remaining 20 percent of families were evenly split between the "very low" and "low and moderate" HUD categories. Figure 1-14. Distribution of Families by Income Category, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: HUD, American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. Above 80% HUD AMI (69.4%) Extremely low (30 % HUD AMI) (10.5%) Very low ((9 8%) AMI) (9.896) Low and moderate (8096 HUD AMI) (10.3%) Low Income and poverty. Figure I-15 shows the proportion of very low income households (earning less than $25,000) by block group. Approximately 19 percent of all households in Temecula earn less than $25,000, so block groups in which more than 39 percent of households are low income are considered to have low income concentrations. Low income households tend to be concentrated immediately west of I-15. Low income households are also concentrated just outside the western boundary of Temecula. The two block groups just east of I-15 with 19 to 39 percent low income households also had a high percentage of female -headed households with children. Figure 1-15. Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula, 2009 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend City of Temecula Less than 19.0% _ 190%to 39,0% More than 390% BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 11 In 2000, 7 percent of Temecula's population, or 3,864 people, were living below the poverty level. This was substantially lower than the rest of Riverside County, the state of California and the U.S. as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010 the poverty rate in Temecula doubled to 14 percent (14,020 people). Despite this large increase, the poverty level in Temecula remained below that of Riverside County, California and the U.S., as shown in Figure I-16. Figure 1-16. Poverty Rate, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Temecula Riverside County CA Us 6.7% 14.096 1 ■ 2000 14.296 16.396 -14.296 15.896 1 ■ 2010 12.4% 15.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 100% A comparison of poverty rates by age cohort shows a higher incidence of poverty for the city's children: 23 percent of children under five years old and 17 percent of children five to 17 years lived in poverty in 2010. The poverty rate for seniors in Temecula is an extremely low 1 percent. Seniors were the only age category where poverty did not increase during the past decade. Figure 1-17. Poverty by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Overall 2000 Percent People Living in Living in Poverty Poverty 7% 3,864 2010 Percent Living in Poverty People Living in Poverty 14% 14,020 Under 5 years 10% 540 23% 1,791 5 to 17 18 to 34 years 35 to 64 years 65 years an 6% 927 10% 1.273 5% 996 17% 19% 10% 4,015 4,365 3,803 Homelessness. Riverside County conducts an annual Point in Time (PIT) Count of homeless individuals. The most recently published PIT, conducted in January of 2011, reports homeless tabulations for Riverside County and a total number of homeless persons located in Temecula. Since homeless subpopulations were not provided for Temecula in the PIT, the homeless population of Temecula was assumed to have the same characteristics as Riverside County as a whole. For example, since 3 percent of the total homeless population was located in Temecula, 3 percent of the chronically homeless were also assumed to be located in Temecula. Since there is not a homeless shelter in Temecula, the entire homeless population of Temecula is assumed to be unsheltered. PAGE 12, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING According to the 2011 PIT, there were 162 people who were homeless in Temecula. An estimated 148 of these people were individuals and 14 were persons in families with children. Sixty-six were estimated to be chronically homeless.' Figure 1-18 displays the estimated number of homeless individuals in Temecula by subpopulation, gender, race and ethnicity. The gender, race and ethnicity estimates are based on responses to a survey conducted in conjunction with the PIT. Figure 1-18. Homeless Population of Temecula, 2011 Source: Riverside County January 2011 Point -in -Time Count Report. Total Percent Homeless Individuals 148 91% Persons in Homeless Family Units Total 14 9% 162 Homeless Subpopulations Chronically Homeless 66 41% Severely Mentally 111 48 30% Chronic Substance Abuse 75 46% Veterans 23 14% Persons with HIV/AIDS 5 3% Victims of Domestic Violence 19 12% Youth (Under 18 years of age) 3 2% ander Male 96 59% Female 62 38% Unknown 5 3% Race and Ethnicity White/Caucasian 73 45% Hispanic/Latino 44 27% Black/African American 31 19% Other 15 9% In addition to those who have experienced homelessness in the past or are captured in a point -in -time estimate of current homelessness, many residents in Temecula are at risk of future homelessness because they cannot afford their current apartment or home, or are living in temporary situations. A lower bound estimate of the city's population of persons at risk of homelessness can be calculated using HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2000. The CHAS data provide estimates of severe cost -burden and housing need for low income households with various characteristics. In general, households with the highest risk factors for homelessness tend to have the lowest incomes and have trouble paying their housing costs. They are also more likely to be renters and have limited social supports. Figure I-19 shows, the estimated number of persons at risk of homelessness by household category for the City of Temecula. 2 The number of people within each homeless subpopulation is provided in the Strategic Plan (Section IV), consistent with HUD requirements. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 13 Figure 1-19. At -Risk of Homelessness: Extremely Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened Households, Temecula, 2010 Small Families 267 Source: IL =. -.'ir' es 121 BBC Research and Consulting, 2000 and 2010 Census and SOCDS CHAS database. Other Households 190 178 57 5 444 178 196 Total 673 264 937 Employment This section presents key employment statistics for Temecula, including educational attainment levels, commuting statistics, major employers, unemployment rates and earnings. Employment statistics are helpful in evaluating housing needs as they provide an indicator of the economic health of an area and indicate what type of housing will be needed to serve potential new workers and residents. Educational attainment. According to the ACS, in 2010, approximately 9 percent of Temecula residents had less than a high school or graduate equivalency degree (GED). This percentage is substantially lower than both Riverside County and the State of California, where 21 percent and 19 percent, respectively, did not graduate from high school or earn a GED. Nearly one-third of the residents in Temecula have a bachelors or graduate degree. In Riverside County, the percentage of residents with a bachelors or graduate degree is much lower at approximately 20 percent. Figures I-20 and I-21 display the educational attainment of Riverside County and Temecula residents. Figure 1-20. Educational Attainment, Riverside County, 2010 Graduate Less than Bachelor's degree high school degree (7.0%) graduate (13.395) im (21.295) Some college, associate's degree (33.4%) High school graduate (includes equivalency) (25.1 %) Figure I-21. Educational Attainment, City of Temecula, 2010 Bachelor's degree (21.4%) I Graduate degree (9.2%) Less than high school graduate (8.4%) Some college, associate's degree (39.1%) Note: Riverside County estimates include Temecula Residents Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Source: 2010 American Community Survey. High school graduate (includes equivalency) (21.9%) PAGE 14, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Commuting. The City of Temecula is positioned on Interstate 15 between San Diego and Los Angeles, two of the largest economies in the state of California. As a result of this easy access to large employment markets, a high proportion of Temecula residents commute to jobs outside the community. According to the U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics, nearly one- quarter of Temecula's employed residents work in San Diego County and another 20 percent work in either Orange County or Los Angeles County. Forty-seven percent of Temecula's employed residents work in Riverside County (see Figure I-22). Figure 1-22. Place of Employment for City of Temecula Residents, 2009 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics Riverside County, CA San Diego County, CA Orange County, CA Los Angeles County, CA San Bernardino County, CA All Other Locations 10.496 9.3% 5.896 4.096 23.5% 47.O% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Residents Major employers. As of June 2010, Temecula's major employers (more than 1,000 employees) included Abbott Laboratories, Temecula Valley Unified School District and Professional Hospital Supply. Figure 1-23. Major Employers, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Temecula Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. ajor Employers 1000+ E Abbott Laboratories Temecula Valley Unified School District Professional Hospital Supply 500-999 Employees International Rectifier Macy's Costco Wholesale Corporation EMD Millipore f/k/a Chemi-Con Internat Milgard Manufacturing Southwest Traders Major Employers (continued) 100-249 Employees Plant Equipment, Inc. Norm Reeves Auto Group/DCH FFF Enterprises Inc. Channell Commercial Corporation Dayton Hudson Corporation / Target Temecula Creek Inn Stater Brothers Opto 22, Inc. Sears JC Penney Company Toyota of Temecula Valley City of Temecula Rancho California Water District Home Depot Lowe's Albertson's BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 15 Unemployment. Before the economic downturn in late 2007, Temecula's average unemployment rate was generally lower than the county, state and national rates. Along with most communities, Temecula's unemployment rate rose sharply in 2008 and 2009. By the end of 2010, Temecula's unemployment rate (10.1%) was higher than the U.S. rate, but still lower than in California (12.4%) and Riverside County (14.7%). As of September 2011, the unemployment rate (unadjusted) in Temecula had gone down to 9.6 percent. Figure 1-24. Unemployment Rates, City of Temecula, Riverside County, State of California and the U.S., 1990 to 2010 16 d 14 ct • 12 y 10 E+ 8 6 e • 4 2 0 1990 • nrup"rp,,ypruu ?— se , California Riverside County Temecula us 1992 1994 1996 Note: Not seasonally adjusted. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Average wages. The wage data presented in the following figure identifies wages by occupation for residents of Temecula. According to the 2010 ACS, the median earnings for Temecula's employed population (over the age of 16) are $37,137. This is higher than the median earnings for California ($33,016) and Riverside County ($30,795). The highest paying industries for Temecula residents were public administration, wholesale trade and manufacturing. Figure 1-25. Median Earnings by Industry, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Median Earnings Lgriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, a Construction $ 37,284 $ 61,006 $ 70,065 $ 16,535 Manng Wholesale trade Retail trade Transportation and warehousing and utilities $ 37,200 Information $ 44,739 Finance and insurance $ 51,090 Real-MNc rentarental and leasing $ 40,260 Professional, scientific, management and technical services $ 42,201 Administrative support and was 28,07 Educational services $ 48,372 Rth care and social assistance "911114 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $ 14,865 Accommodation and food services 2,9911 Other services, except public administration $ 20,130 Public administration $ 75,346I Overall Employed Population (16 years and older) $ 37,137 PAGE 16, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING As shown previously (in Figure I-23) Temecula Valley School District is one of the largest employers in Temecula. Median earnings for these employees in educational services are relatively high at $48,372 per year. However, there are also a large number of retail trade businesses in Temecula, which pay relatively low wages. Housing Profile The 2010 Census reports 34,004 housing units within city limits. This is 78 percent more housing units than in 2000, when the total number of units was estimated at 19,099. On average, the city added 906 new units per year between 2000 and 2010. Like many cities, the height of new construction occurred during the middle part of the last decade. Vacancy. According to the Census, 2,223 housing units, or 6.5 percent of the city's housing stock, were vacant in 2010. As shown in Figure I-26, approximately 61 percent of vacant units were for rent or sale. Figure 1-26. Vacancy Status, Housing Units, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census. All other vacants (19.2%) For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (12.3%) For rent (34.096) Sold, not occupied (5.196) For sale only (27.296) Rented, not occupied (2.2%) Tenure. The Census estimates that 69 percent of occupied housing units in Temecula are owner - occupied and 31 percent are renter -occupied. The vast majority of owner -occupied units are single family detached homes; single family homes make up a larger proportion of rental units as well. Detached homes and other structures with few units, such as townhomes, condos and small apartment buildings are also an important part of the rental housing stock. The type of housing occupied by renters is shown in Figure I-27. Figure 1-27. Types of Housing Occupied by Renters, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. Large apartment buildings (10 or more units) (32.096) Single family, detached homes (3 7.096) Small apartment buildings (5 to 9 units) (24.096) Townhomes, condos, duplexes, fourplexes (7.8%) BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 17 Age and lead-based paint hazards. Figure I-28 shows the distribution of residential units in the city by age. More than 30 percent of the city's units are very new, built in the past 10 years. Only 8 percent of the city's housing stock was built before 1980. Less than 1 percent of the city's housing stock was built before 1940, when lead-based paint was most common. Another 1.2 percent of the city's housing was built between 1940 and 1960, when lead- based paint was still used but the amount of lead in the paint was being reduced. Altogether, only 1.7 percent of Temecula's housing stock was built in periods when lead-based paint was commonly used. Figure 1-28. Age of Housing, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 American Community Survey. ar Built Number Percent of Units of Units 2000 or later 1990 to 1999 11,233 36% 1980 to 1989 7,606 24% 1960 to 1979 2,096 6.7% 1940 to 1959 366 1.2% 1939 nr earlier 149 0.5% Total Units 31,261 If (as HUD estimates), 90 percent of the pre -1940 units in Temecula are at risk of containing lead- based paint, 80 percent of the units built between 1940 and 1960 are at risk, and 62 percent of units built between 1960 and 1979 are at risk, then as many as 1,726 Temecula housing units (6%) may contain lead paint. The estimated number of households with a lead-based paint hazard is displayed in Figure 1-29. Of these units, an estimated 322 are occupied by low income households. Figure 1-29. Estimated Households with Lead -Based Paint Risk, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: HUD -"Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead -Based Paint Hazards in Housing", 2010 American Community Survey. Number Estimated Estimated Year Housing of Housing Percentage Number of Unit Was Built Units at Risk Units at Risk 1939 or earlier 1940 to 1960 1960 to 1979 149 366 2,096 Total 2,611 90% 80% 62% 134 293 1,300 1,726 The following map displays the number of low income housing units that may be at risk of lead- based paint hazards. All of the housing units identified on the map were built in the years before lead- based paint was banned from usage and are very low income households (earning less than $25,000). The area with the greatest risk of lead-based paint hazards for low income households is in the western portion of the city. PAGE 18, SECTION 1 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure 1-30. Estimated Number of Households with Lead -Based Paint Risk by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: Claritas, 2010, BBC Research & Consulting. teyand City of Temecula Less than 50 households 50 to 100 households _ 100 to 200 households _ More than 200 households Substandard condition. The Census defines severely substandard housing as housing units that are lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities and are not intended primarily for recreational use (e.g., a casita used like a cabin). According to the 2010 ACS, 60 housing units in Temecula lack complete plumbing and 47 units lack complete kitchens. Assuming no overlap between units without plumbing and units without kitchens, as many as 107 units in the city could be in severely substandard condition. These units represent 0.3 percent of the occupied housing stock. Of the 107 substandard housing units, 56 percent were owner occupied and 44 percent were renter occupied. Overcrowding. For the purposes of the Consolidated Plan, overcrowding is defined as a housing unit with more than 1.0 person per room in a housing unit. In 2000, 7 percent of units were overcrowded. According to the ACS, in 2010 that number dropped to 4 percent, or 1,184 units. Nine percent of Hispanic households are overcrowded compared with 2 percent of non -Hispanic white households. Housing Affordability This section discusses housing affordability in the City of Temecula, both housing to rent and housing to buy. Affordability defined. In the housing industry, housing affordability is commonly defined in terms of the proportion of household income that is used to pay housing costs. Housing is "affordable" if no more than 30 percent of a household's monthly income is needed for rent, mortgage payments and utilities. When the proportion of household income needed to pay housing costs exceeds 30 percent, a household is considered "cost burdened." BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 19 Rental housing. The 2010 median rent in Temecula, including utilities, was $1,252, according to the ACS.3 To afford the city's median rent and average utilities and not be cost burdened, a renter would need to earn $50,080. Only 36 percent of the city's renters can afford to pay the median rent and utilities. In 2000, Temecula's median rent was $846. The median rent in 2010 is $406 per month higher than in 2000. To afford this increase, renters in the city would need to earn $16,240 more per year. Renter incomes increased in the decade—but by just $2,664. Therefore, renters have lost purchasing power in the city's rental market during the past 10 years. HUD maintains data on fair market rents (FMR) by bedroom size (the FMRs include utility costs, except for telephones). As shown by Figure I-31, FMRs for two-bedroom apartments in Riverside County increased steadily between 2000 and 2008 and have since leveled off. The total increase in fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment between 2000 and 2010 was $499 per month. This is somewhat higher than the overall increase in Temecula's median rent reported by the ACS ($406 per month). Figure I-31 Trends in Fair Market Rents for Two -Bedroom Apartments, City of Temecula, 2000 to 2012 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 $609 $621 $656 $690 $729—$752— _$974_ $911 $1,142 $1,125 $1,108 $1,144 $1,149 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. Figure I-32 shows the 2010 FMRs by bedroom size and calculates the affordability of each size. Fewer than half of Temecula households can afford an apartment with more than one bedroom. The figure also compares the percentage of renters who could afford the FMR by size in 2010 to 2005. By this measure all rental units have decreased in affordability relative to renter incomes. 3 The median rent is the price point at which half of renters pay less and half pay more. PAGE 20, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure 1-32. Fair Market Rents and Affordability by Bedroom Size, City of Temecula, 2010 Fair Market Rent (FMR) $ 854 $ 940 $ 1,108 $ 1,559 $ 1,818 How much a renter needs to earn to afford FMR $ 34,160 LPercent of renters who can afford FMR (2010). Percent of renters who can afford FMR (2005) 74.7% $ 37,600 $ 44,320 51.9% 45.1% 70.0% 63.1% $ 62,360 $ 72,720 28.6% 19.6% 44.2% 33.2% Source: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2010 American Community Survey, 2005 American Community Survey and BBC Research & Consulting. Housing to buy. The median value of owner -occupied homes in Temecula was $289,800 in 2010 according to the ACS. Although this is up from the median value of $190,100 in 2000, it is substantially lower than the 2007 median value of $468,000. Like many growing cities in the U.S., Temecula saw a dramatic increase in home prices in the middle part of the past decade and then a sharp decline as the housing bubble burst. In Temecula, home values decreased by 38 percent between 2007 and 2010. Figure I-33 displays median home values in 2000 and 2005-2010. Figure 1-33. $600,000 Median Value of Owner - Occupied Units, City of $500,000 Temecula, 2000 to 2010 $400,000 Note: $300,000 Comparable data are not available for the city in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. $200,000 Source: $100,000 2000 Census, 2005.2010 American Community Survey. $0 $457,900 $4 58,800— $468,000 $190,100_ $381,200 $3°4,7°°_$289,800 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Between 2000 and 2010, the median home value increased by $99,700. Homeowners would need to earn approximately $26,880 more per year in 2010 than in 2000 to afford the median -valued home. In actuality, the median household income for homeowners in the city increased by $16,995. Therefore, like renters, owners lost purchasing power in the city during the past decade. In addition, owners who purchased during the middle part of the decade have likely lost equity in their homes. Gaps analysis. The following analysis examines housing need across all income levels to identify mismatches in supply and demand for renter households in Temecula. It reports the results of a modeling effort called a gaps analysis, which compares housing affordability for households at different income levels to the supply of rental units affordable at these income levels. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 21 Instead of estimating the type of housing each household in the city would prefer, income is used as a proxy, as income is the most important factor in accessing housing. The calculation to determine what is "affordable" to the various income groups assumes the following: • First, households cannot pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. (Households cannot be cost burdened). • Second, housing costs are adjusted to include utility payments. The model is based on gross rent, which includes utility payments. • In addition, the gaps model also assumes a 7 percent vacancy rate for rental units, based on the 2010 rental vacancy rate. The model also excludes households who are not paying cash rent (e.g., they are caretakers, nannies and are living in their rental units rent free as exchange for certain services) and uses a total household number from the 2008-2010 ACS.4 The analysis compares the number of renter households in Temecula in 2008-2010, their income levels, the maximum monthly housing payment they could afford, and the number of units in the market that were affordable to them. The "gaps" columns show the difference between the number of renter households and the number of rental units affordable to them. Negative numbers (in parentheses) indicate a shortage of units at the specific income level; positive units indicate an excess of units. Specifically, the gap analysis in Figure I -36a (pg. 24) shows the following: • In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula -45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 affordable units -11 percent of all rental units— available to households in this income range, leaving a shortage of approximately 3,177 rental units for these low income households. Of the rental households facing this gap, 38 percent earned less than $15,000 and 62 percent earned between $15,000 and $35,000. • In contrast, there is a large surplus of units affordable for renter households earning more than $35,000 per year. Thirty-seven percent of Temecula households earn between $35,000 and $75,000 but 68 percent of rental units in the city cater to this income range—a surplus of 3,423 units. There is also a surplus of affordable units available to households earning $75,000 or more. Figure I-34 displays the rental market mismatch graphically. Figure 1-34. Rental Market Mismatch, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research Sr Consulting. 5,000- 4,000 3,000 2,0001,0000 Renter Households • Rental Units Available 2,900 2,225 267 2,067 848 1,434 2,048 4,005 —1,665- 2,141 Less than $20,000 to $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 or $19,000 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 more 4 The 2010 Census reports 31,261 households; the 2008-2010 ACS showed 30,543. Because we could not obtain income distributions or tenure from the 2010 Census at the time the gaps model was prepared, 2008-2010 ACS is used in the model. PAGE 22, SECTION 1 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Cost burden. An examination of cost burdened households -those who pay more than 30 percent of their incomes in housing cost -helps identify which households have the greatest needs and how housing affordability has changed over time. Cost burdened households may be cutting back on necessary household expenses because of housing costs; they might also be at risk of eviction or foreclosure. According to the 2010 ACS, cost burden is very high among renters in Temecula: 63 percent of renters pay more than 30 percent of their household income in housing costs; and 40 percent pay 50 percent or more ("severely" cost burdened). For owners, about half face cost burden and 23 percent face severe cost burden. Figure I-35 shows cost burden for Temecula renters and owners. Figure 1-33. Cost Burdened Households, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. Figure I -36a. Housing Supply and Demand Comparisons, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research S Consulting. 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent jenters' Cost Burdened 2,011 43% Severely Cost Burdened 1,000 21% 3,756 40% 5,930 63% 11111111 Cost Burdened 4,519 36% 11,124 52% Severely Cost Burdened 1,168 9% 4,855 23% Income Range Maximum Affordable Renters Rpt' Rental Units Including Renta Number Percent Utilities Number Percent G. 1111=18 --DO $5,000 to $9,999 771 8% $ 250 $10,000 to $14,999 673 7% $ 375 $15,000 to $19,999 585 6% $ 500 $20,000 to $24,999 1,037 11% $ 625 $25,000 to $34,999 1,030 11% $ 875 $35,000 to $49,999• 1,434 15% $ 1,250 $50,000 to $74,999 2,048 22% $ 1,875 $ 125 0% 0 0% 104 1% (195) (771) (569) 163 2% (423) 133 1% (904) 715 7% (315) 2,900 29% 1,466 4,005 39% 1,957 $75,0 18% $ 2,500 2,141 21% 476 Total 9,440 100% 10,161 100% 721 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION I, PAGE 23 Figure I -36b. Housing Supply and Demand Comparisons by MFI, City of Temecula, 2010 Area Median Income Category Maximum Affordable Renters Rent, Number Income Including of Rental Rental Cutoff Number Percent Utilities Units Gap nJ% to 30% of AMI . $18,750 31%to 50%ofAMI $31,250 51% to 80%ofAMI $50,000 2,079 22% $ 469 1,827 19% $ 781 1,820 19% $ 1,250 100% of AMI $62,500 1,024 11% $ 1,563 101% to 120%ofAMI $75,000 1,024 11% $ 1,875 121% to 150%ofAMI $93,750 370 4% $ 2,344 (2,079) 566 (1,261) 549 (1,271) 5,317 4,292 1,589 564 (0) (370) More than 150%ofAMI 1,295 14% $ 2,344 2,141 846 Total 9,440 100% 10,161 721 Note: HUD median family income = $62,500 Source: BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 24, SECTION I BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input SECTION II. Stakeholder Consultation and Public Input This section summarizes and presents the results of public participation in the development of the Temecula Five-year Consolidated Plan and AI. Temecula recognizes that input from residents and stakeholders is vital to fully understand the city's housing and community development needs. To this end, the Consolidated Plan and AI were developed with a strong emphasis on community input. Specifically, • The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the city's website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. • On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. • Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. • The draft Consolidated Plan was published in the local newspaper to notice the 30 -day public comment review period beginning on March 1, 2012. • A public hearing was held on April 10, 2012 to accept comments on the Draft Consolidated Plan. The meeting was held at City Hall, which is accessible to persons with disabilities. The City Council meeting was noticed in the local newspaper for 14 days. Findings • Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. • Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. • Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 1 • Most residents are very satisfied with their current housing. Those who are unsatisfied cite the need for repairs, high HOA fees, traffic and foreclosures in the neighborhood as reasons for their dissatisfaction. • Nearly 50 percent of homeowners responding to the survey owe more on their home than it is currently worth. Slightly more than one in ten are very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. • One in ten residents had tried to find affordable housing in Temecula without success, and one in five had experienced difficulty trying to access public transit. • Residents report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing; and the income levels of minority and female -headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. • The majority of residents feel that people like them are welcome in Temecula. Those who did not feel welcome believe this results from their being single parents, mixed -race families or gay. • Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the most common type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Stakeholder Survey Participant Profile A total of 30 stakeholders representing a broad spectrum of interests responded to the stakeholder survey. All serve the city of Temecula and most serve all of Riverside County. The industries and professions represented include: • Affordable housing provision; • Neighborhood stabilization; • Child protective services; • Rental property owners and managers; • Fair housing; • Residential development; • Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; • Sales; • Higher education; • Senior services; • Homeless services; • Services for low income residents; • Landlord/tenant services; • Services for single mothers; • Lending; • Social services; and • Manufacturing; • Youth development. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 2 Participating stakeholders serve a variety of p • Elderly; • Families on CalWorks cash assistance; • Immigrants; • Low income individuals; • Persons with a developmental disability; • Persons and families who are homeless; • Persons with HIV/AIDS; opulations in Temecula, including; • Persons with a mental illness; • Persons with a physical disability; • Persons with substance abuse/addiction; • Victims of domestic violence; • Single mothers; and • Youth. Stakeholders responded to a series of questions regarding community needs and fair housing. Their responses are discussed throughout this section. Resident Survey Participant Profile A total of 176 Temecula residents responded to the resident survey. In addition to responding to questions about community needs and fair housing choice, respondents provided information about themselves and their household. Children. Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the resident survey have children under the age of 18 living in their home. Households with children are slightly over -represented in the resident survey. Figure 11-1. Children Under Age 18 Note: N=158. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Household size. The average household size of resident survey respondents was 3.3. As shown in Figure II -2, households of all sizes responded to the survey. The survey respondent household size aligns closely to Census data. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 3 Figure 11-2. Household Size Note: n=158. Source: 10 4 3 BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 2 1 '70 190 32% l% 2396 2596 l% 1196 l% 19'0 596 496 One Two Three Four Household Members Five Six or more BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 4 Employment. Figure II -3 presents the employment status of the primary household earner. Among the primary earners in respondents' households, 12 percent are retired and 5 percent are unemployed. Figure 11-3. Primary Earner Employment Status Note: n=159. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Retired (1296) Yes, employed (8396) No, unemployed (S%) Income. Figure II -4 depicts the household income of resident survey respondents. Slightly less than one in ten earn less than $35,000 per year and one in four earn between $50,000 and $75,000. Figure 11-4. Household Income Note: n=151. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 10096 4096 3096 26% 24% 2096 1096 8% 896 096 3496 Less than $35,000 to $50,000 to $75,000 to $100,000 $35,000 less than less than less than $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 or more Race/ethnicity. As shown in Figure II -5, while the vast majority of respondents identified themselves as White, more than one in ten respondents identified their race or ethnicity as Hispanic. Because the survey question did not separate race and ethnicity like the Census does, the results cannot be directly compared. However, it appears that Whites were slightly over -represented and, Hispanics slightly under -represented, in the survey. Figure 11-5. Race/Ethnicity Note: n=158. Numbers add to greater than 100 percent due to multiple response. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. White Hispanic or Latino Multi -racial American Indian or Alaska Native Black or African American Pacific Islander ■ 1196 .796 1 396 1396 1396 88% 0% 2096 4096 6096 80% 100% BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 5 Tenure. More than four in five respondents to the resident survey own their homes. As shown in Figure II -6, 17 percent are renters. Homeowners are somewhat over -represented among survey respondents. Figure 11-6. Housing Tenure Note: n=175. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Rent (17%) Resident Survey. Own (83%) Disability. One in ten respondents indicated that a member of their household has a disability. Figure 11-7. Disability Status Note: n=156. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes, both mental and physical disability (1%) Yes, mental disability (3%) Yes, physical disability (6%) No (90%) Those households with a member with a disability were asked whether or not their current home met the needs of the disabled member of the household. One respondent indicated that their home did not meet the needs of the member with a disability, and stated, "Not designed for wheel -chaired members." Resident Perspectives on Housing in Temecula Residents shared their perspectives on housing in Temecula, including topics specific to homeowners and renters. Current housing. Residents rated their level of satisfaction with their current housing situation. Those that were dissatisfied cited the reasons for their dissatisfaction. Residents also responded to questions related to what they would like to change about their current living situation. Satisfaction. Respondents to the resident survey are very satisfied with their current housing, as shown in Figure II -8. Nearly one in four are extremely satisfied with their housing. The average satisfaction rating was 7 on a scale from 0 to 9. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 6 Figure 11-8. Housing Satisfaction Note: n=175. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Extremely satisfied 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Extremely dissatisfied 0 Average: 7 7% 14% 24% 26% 23% 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 100% Reasons for dissatisfaction. Those few residents dissatisfied with their current housing situation cited a number of reasons for their dissatisfaction. These included: • Traffic; • The need to repair or update their home; • High HOA dues; • High taxes; and • Poor workmanship or materials on their home; • Depressed property values. • High number of foreclosures in the neighborhood; While the complete list of resident comments is included in Appendix D to the Consolidated Plan, the following are representative of residents' concerns: • "Foreclosures in area have gone up leaving empty lots." • "HOA costs are too high." • "I can't safely walk or ride my bike anywhere nearby, other than a bike trail that has no destination." • "Materials are substandard and shoddy construction." • "Neighborhood has too many rentals now." • "Neighborhood upkeep has decreased with decline in home values." • "Needs lots of maintenance." • "Needs work I can't afford to do." • "Upside down on loan, therefore cannot make improvements to bring value up." • "Traffic in general." BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 7 Desired change to living situation. Half of the residents who responded to the survey would not change their current living situation. As shown in Figure II -9, slightly more than one in ten would like to buy a home and approximately one in ten would like to sell their home. Slightly more than one in ten would live in a different part of Temecula. Figure 11-9. Desired Change to Current Living Situation I wouldn't change anything about my current living situation I currently rent, but Note: would like to buy n=173. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 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 12% 12% .9% 15% 13% 50% O% 1096 2096 30% 40% 5096 60% 100% Responses in the other category were broad and ranged from moving to a larger or smaller house and moving away from traffic noise, to the impact of a down market on home prices. • "I would decrease the traffic noise behind my house." • "I would like a better interest rate and lower HOA dues." • "I would like a smaller home." • "I would like to see more cultured and non -xenophobic residents." • "Large number of rentals and foreclosures bringing down house prices." • "More bike paths, better walkability, more parks with water (lakes, ponds), more dog parks." • "Wish it was closer for commuting to Orange County." Desired place to move within Temecula. Those residents who want to move within Temecula (12% overall) named the parts of Temecula or other areas they would like to move to. These areas include: • Chardonnay Hills; • Paloma del Sol; • Crowne Hill; • Paseo del Sol; • Meadowview; • Santiago Estates; • Morgan Hill; • South Temecula; and • Old Town; • Wine country. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 8 Homeowners. Homeowners responded to questions about the value of their mortgage compared to the value of their home and their concerns about foreclosure. Home values. Among homeowners, nearly 50 percent report that they owe more money on their home than it is currently worth. Figure 11-10. Do you owe more on your home than it is worth? Note: n=140. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (45%) I don't know (4%) No(51%) Foreclosure concerns. Most homeowners are not very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. But, more than one in ten are very concerned about their potential for foreclosure, as shown in Figure II -11. Figure 11-11. Degree of Foreclosure Concern Note: n=140. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Extremely concerned Notat alconcerned 0 Average: 2 54% 0% 1O% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 100% Renters. Renters responded to questions about the ease of finding affordable rental units in Temecula and their interest in homeownership. Ease of finding affordable rental unit. For renters, the relative ease of finding an affordable rental unit varied widely as shown in Figure II -12. Overall, the average ease of finding a unit was 5 on a scale from 0 to 9. About one in five renters had a difficult time finding a unit while one-third found it to be very easy. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 9 Figure 11-12. Ease of Finding a Rental Unit Note: n=29. Source: BBC Research Et Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Extremely 9 easy 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Extremely difficult 0 Average: 4.9 7% 14% 1O% 1O% 2496 0% 796 1796 7% 3% — n 096 596 1096 1596 2096 2596 3096 3596 100% Reasons why renters have not purchased a home. Figure II -13 depicts the reasons why renters have not yet purchased a home. Lack of down payment, inability to pay a mortgage and poor credit were cited as reasons for not purchasing by at least one in five renters. Figure 11-13. Reasons for Not Purchasing a Home Note: n=31. Numbers add to greater than 100 percent due to multiple response. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. I do not have enough money for a down payment Other I cannot afford a mortgage I have poor credit I cannot afford maintenance costs associated with home ownership I cannot find something I want to buy Doesn't apply; I do not want to buy a home I plan to move to another city 10% 10% 1096 1996 19% 2696 3296 096 10% 20% 30% 4096 100% BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 10 Responses in the other category mentioned the impact of cash investors, delays associated with buying properties in foreclosure and a lack of suitable loan products. • "Every time that we put an offer on a home we lose to some investor that offers all cash." • "I did own a house in Temecula at one time...But lost it like many others in Temecula...Now we rent in Temecula." • "The majority of homes I'm interested in purchasing are short sale, foreclosure or bank owned, making the process very long and arduous." • "The mortgage industry is hopelessly corrupt and there are no instruments available other than outright cash purchase and that isn't feasible at current high prices." Temecula Housing and Community Development Needs Residents and stakeholders selected up to three community needs in seven different categories, ranging from community facilities to housing. Public meeting participants discussed community needs and engaged in needs prioritization exercises. Community facilities. With regard to community facilities, residents and stakeholders responding to the survey identified health care facilities, park and recreational facilities and youth centers as top community needs. Figure II -14 presents the community facility needs identified by residents and stakeholders in order of greatest to least importance. Figure 11-14. Community Facility Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Resident Stakeholder Community Facility Needs Votes Votes Health Care Facilities 103 15 Park & Recreational Facilities 73 8 Youth Centers 72 15 Community Centers 48 13 Fire Stati Senior Centers 36 10 Libraries 24 1 Public meeting attendees discussed a range of community facility needs, including improving the Boys & Girls Club facility and upgrading Rotary Park in the Pujol neighborhood. Comments from public meeting attendees include: • "Boys & Girls Club on Pujol is old." • "Parks in Old Town are old; there's a quality difference. Rotary Park is an example." • "Senior facilities exist, but demand is high." BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 11 Infrastructure. Street and alley improvements were the top infrastructure need identified by both residents and stakeholders, followed by street lighting and sidewalk improvements. Few identified ADA improvements as a need, as shown in Figure II -15. Figure 11-15. Infrastructure Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Infrastructure Needs Resident Stakeholder Votes Votes Street/Alley Improvement Street Lighting Sidewalk Improve Drainage Improvement 94 72 57 44 13 11 11 11 ADA I mprovments 8 5 Special needs. Figure II -16 presents residents' and stakeholders' assessment of special needs in Temecula. Services for persons experiencing homelessness, to promote family self-sufficiency and to aid neglected or abused children were the top three needs identified by residents and stakeholders. Figure 11-16. Special Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Special Needs Resi dent Stakeholder Votes Votes Milms Shelters/Services Family Self -Sufficiency Service Neglected/Abused Children Center Centers/Services for Disabled 61 21 58 14 511 40 8 Domestic Viole Substance Abuse Services 24 8 Accessibility Improvements 11 HIV/AIDS Centers & Services 5 1 Community services. As shown in Figure II -17, health services, youth activities and transportation services were the top three community services needs identified by residents. Stakeholders' assessments of needs were similar. One public meeting attendee stated a need for, "Health care and services at schools, such as food distribution and clothes." Figure 11-17. Community Services Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Community Services Resident Stakeholder Votes Votes Health Services 76 Youth Activities 75 62 Anti -Crime Programs 58 11 15 12 7 Senior Activities 39 6 Child Care Services 34 12 Mental Health Services 25 9 Legal Services 21 6 BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 12 Neighborhood services. Cleanup of abandoned lots and buildings, tree planting, and code enforcement were the top three neighborhood services needs identified by residents. As shown in Figure II -18, stakeholders prioritized trash and debris removal, cleanup of abandoned lots and buildings, tree planting and graffiti removal. Figure 11-18. Neighborhood Services Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Neighborhood Services Resident Votes Stakeholder Votes Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings 77 12 Tree Planting 73 10 Code Enforcement 5 Trash & Debris Removal 61 13 Graffiti Removal1111 Parking Facilities - 24 0 8 Businesses and jobs. Among the businesses and jobs needs, both residents and stakeholders strongly identified the need for job creation/retention. Resident also selected start-up business assistance and small business loans as community needs, as shown in Figure II -19. Stakeholders identified employment training and start-up business assistance as needs. Figure 11-19. Businesses and Jobs Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Businesses & Jobs Resident Stakeholder Votes Votes tion/Retentio 107 25 Start-up Business Assistance 75 Small R[isiness I� 12 62 10 Employment Training 55 17 mercial/Ind ill =ai' 34 Facade Improvements 30 2 Business Mentorin Housing. As shown in Figure II -20, residents' and stakeholders' assessment of housing needs were similar, with one notable exception. The greatest number of residents selected energy efficient improvements as the top housing need while stakeholders identified affordable rental housing. Homeownership assistance and owner -occupied housing rehabilitation were the second and third top housing needs selected by both residents and stakeholders. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 13 Figure 11-20. Housing Needs Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Housing Resident Stakeholder Votes Votes rergy Efficient Improvements Homeownership Assistance Owner -Occupied Housing Rehabilitation 47 Senior Housing 40 61 57 7 12 11 5 Affordat7•30 20 Housing for Foster Youth 24 5 3 Rental Housing Rehabilitation 15 6 Housing..P11.11.2 2 Housing for Family Unification 9 3 7 0 ADA Improvements 4 0 Housing for Larg 3 Top needs. Figure II -21 summarizes the top needs, measured by number of votes, identified by residents and stakeholders. For residents, job creation/retention, health care facilities and street/alley improvements received the greatest number of votes. Among stakeholders, job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing were the top three needs. Figure 11-21. Top Community Needs Job Creation/Retention 107 Health Care Facilities Street/Alley Improvement Cleanup of Abandoned Lots and Buildings 103 94 77 Health Services 76 Start-up Business Assi stance Youth Activities Park & Recreational Facilities 75 75 73 Tree Plantin Street Lighting Need Stakeh older Votes Job Creation/Retention Homeless Shelters/Services Affordable Rental Housing Employment Training 25 21 20 17 Health Care Facilities 15 Youth Activities 15 Youth Centers 15 Family Self -Sufficiency Service 14 Community Centers 13 72 Street/Alley Improvement Youth Centers 72' 13 Trash & Debris Removal 13 Note: n=176 residents and n=30 stakeholders. Respondents could select up to three needs. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey and 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION 11, PAGE 14 Fair Housing Residents and stakeholders rated the relative seriousness of potential barriers to fair housing in Temecula. Due to their expertise, stakeholders evaluated a more comprehensive list of barriers. Potential barriers to fair housing—residents. As shown in Figure II -22, on average, most residents have not experienced barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Income, concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas and a lack of affordable housing to purchase were the top three barriers, and these were a serious problem for 10 to 17 percent of residents. Figure 11-22. Potential Fair Housing Barriers — Residents Avg. Rating 2.4 My income level 2.3 2.2 Concentrations of affordable housing in certain area s Lack of affordable hou sing to purchase 2.2 Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners a ssociation s 2.1 Lack of affordable housing to rent 1.8 7.4 7.3 7.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing I have poor credit I was given a subprime loan (higher interest rate than normal) My lender told me to uses specific appraisal or hazard insurance company Real estate agents only showed me housing I could afford in certain neighborhoods I did not get information about private mortgage insurance My lender did not give me an appraisal of my home or property I can't find a real estate 0.3 professional of the race, ethnicity, disability or gender I prefer 0.3 Sellers of homes refused to show me their home Housing provider refused to make 0.2 reasonable accommodations for my disability 1 Serious 9 barrier 8 • 7 • 6 • 5 • 4 • 3 • 2 0 Not a barrier 096 20% Note: n=148. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. 40% 6096 8096 10096 BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION 11, PAGE 15 i In addition to rating the barriers shown in Figure II -22, several residents wrote in additional barriers. • "We could not get rid of our smaller home in order to buy a larger home for our growing family. We are worried about maintaining our rental. We are way too upside-down to sell it." • "Lenders lent to people who couldn't afford the house they bought. Lenders lent/people borrowed beyond their means." • "Homes being FHA approved were hard to find." • "The inspector missed a lot of problems." Potential barriers to fair housing—stakeholders. As noted above, stakeholders evaluated a comprehensive series of potential barriers to fair housing. Economic, demographic and housing factors. Figure II -23 depicts stakeholders' ratings of economic, demographic and housing factors that could be barriers to fair housing. Income levels of minority and female -headed households had the highest average rating in this set of factors, at 6.3 on a scale from 0 to 9, where a rating of 9 indicates that the factor is a serious barrier. One stakeholder added developers financing infrastructure through Mello -Roos bonds as a potential barrier. Figure 11-23. Economic, Demographic and Housing Factors — Stakeholders Avg. Rating 6.3 Income levels of minority and female -headed households 5.9 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers 5.8 Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas 3.6 Lack of representation of real estate professionals by persons of differing races, ethnicities, disabilities and gender 3.3 Lack of fair housing information in languages other than English I 1 096 2096 4096 6096 8096 Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research Et Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. 9 8 • 7 • 6 • 5 • 4 • 3 • 2 • 1 0 Serious barrier Not a barrier 10096 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 16 Land use, zoning and housing policies. Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities were the most serious barriers associated with land use, zoning and housing policies, as shown in Figure II -24. Figure 11-24. Land Use, Zoning and Housing Policies — Stakeholders Avg. Rating 6.6 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing 5.7 Neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities 4.9 Lack of accessible housing for persons with disabilities 4.7 Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners associations 4.4 Concentration of group homes in certain neighborhoods 3.9 Limitations on density of housing 3.6 Lack of adequate zoning for manufactured housing 1 0% 20% Note: n=17. Source: BBC Research fa Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Other stakeholder comments included: 40% 60% 80% 100% 9 Serious barrier 8 • 7 • 6 • 5 • 4 • 3 • 2 • 1 0 Nota barrier • "We need more housing for low-income, but I feel the city has done a good job with the apartment units on Pujol St. and other apartment areas in Temecula. Also we have homes Habitat for Humanity built in town and could use more of them so families could own their own homes at a low payment." • "Builders putting Mello -Roos bonds on home buyers; high property taxes." • "Lack of transitional housing for the working poor." BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 17 Capacity issues. Among capacity issues, a lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing was the most serious potential barrier, followed by a lack of fair housing knowledge on the part of small landlords, as shown in Figure II -25. Figure 11-25. Capacity Issues — Stakeholders Avg. Rating 5.9 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing 5.2 Lack of knowledge among small landlords regarding fair housing 5.2 Lack of knowledge among insurance industry representatives regarding fair housing 5.2 Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing 5.7 Lack of knowledge among real estate agents regarding fair housing 4.9 Lack of knowledge among lenders regarding fair housing 4.9 Lack of knowledge among large landlords and or property managers regarding fair housing 4.1 Limited capacity of a local organization devoted to fair housing investigation or testing I 1 I PPE r • ■ • Serious 9 barrier 8 0 Nota barrier 096 2096 Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. 4096 6096 8096 10096 BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 18 ■ ■ ■ Lending activities. The degree of seriousness of lending -related barriers to fair housing choice was very similar across all activities examined. As shown in Figure II -26, lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer was considered a serious barrier by more than 40 percent of stakeholders. Figure 11-26. Lending Activities — Stakeholders Avg. Rating 6.6 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer 6.2 Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company 6.7 Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers 5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers 5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates 1 1 1 096 2096 Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Additional stakeholder comments include: 4096 1 a r 1 6096 8096 9 Serious barrier �(F 8 • y • 6 • S • 4 • 3 • 2 • 1 0 Not a barrier 10096 • "Availability of low interest refinancing for other than federally -insured mortgages/upside down loans." • "Need to put more pressure on banks to release vacant homes to the market in order to better bring up the quality of our neighborhoods. Vacant homes are aesthetically disturbing and also cause safety issues, especially with pools." BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 19 Real estate activities. Figure II -27 presents stakeholders' ratings of real estate activities that may be a barrier to fair housing choice. Steering, denying the availability of housing and insurance agency discrimination had the highest average ratings. Figure 11-27. Real Estate Activities — Stakeholders Avg. Rating 6.1 Real estate agents directing II clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods 5.9 Housing providers falsely denying.. that housing is available 5.9 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties 5.8 Owners of mobile home parks threatening evictions unless tenants pay additional fees and rents 5.6 Housing provider refusing to make reasonable accommodations for tenants with disabilities MEM 5.6 Owners of mobile home parks o. prohibiting children from playing outside 5.6 Sellers of homes refusing to show their home to certain buyers 5.5 Housing providers placing certain tenants in the least desirable units in a development 5.4 Landlords not willing to rent to families with children 5.3 Housing providers using.. discriminatory advertising 4.7 Use of "neighborhood stability" or similar factors as proxies for racial makeup in appraisals 096 I,,.. 2096 4096 Note: n=15. Source: BBC Research tit Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Serious 9 barrier 5 4 1 Not a 0 barrier 6096 8096 10096 Top barriers to fair housing. Figure II -28 summarizes the top barriers (average rating of 5.9 or higher) to fair housing as rated by stakeholders. The most serious barriers include lending and real estate activities as well as NIMBYism. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II PAGE 20 Figure II -28. Most Serious Barriers to Fair Housing Choice— Stakeholders Average Barrier Rating 6.6 Lenders nctsclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer 6.6 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing Income levels of minority and female -headed household"- 6.2 ousehold6.2 Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company 6.1 Le ers e, high s 6.1 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods 5.9 Lack of knowle gd a among residents regarding fair housing 5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers 5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rate 5.9 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers 5.9 Housing providers falsely denying that housing is available 5.9 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Affordable housing. As shown in Figure II -29, about one in ten residents who responded to the survey had been unable to find affordable housing in Temecula. These respondents were unable to find affordable housing in the following areas: • Central Temecula; • Southern Temecula; • Harveston; • The Redhawk/Morgan Hill area; and • Pechanga; • Throughout Temecula. The types of housing sought included single family homes, condos and apartments. Regarding their search for affordable housing, residents wrote: • "As a single parent I needed a rental anywhere in Temecula. Income requirements were extremely and unreasonably high for property management companies and complexes. Had to find a trusting owner that believed with my steady (but not high) income and high FICO that I would pay the rent." • "Looking for low income housing for my son (age 24), who just married and is making little money." Figure 11-29. Have you ever tried to find affordable housing in Temecula and could not? Note: n=155. Source: BBC Research Fa Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. No (8996) BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION 11, PAGE 21 Public transit. About one in five residents who responded to the survey have tried to access public transit in Temecula and were unable to. Figure 11-30. Have you ever tried to get public transit in Temecula and could not? Note: n=156. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. No (80%) In addition to trying to access transit on evenings and weekends, residents reported being unable to access transit from the following parts of Temecula: • Auto mall area; • Old Town; • Calle Medusa; • Paloma del Sol; • Crowne Hill; • Redhawk; • French Valley; • Temecula in general; • Harveston; • Temecula Valley High School; • Highway 79 South; • Winchester; and • La Serena; • Wolf Creek. • Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway; Desired destinations include Murietta, Promenade Mall, Old Town, San Diego and area schools. Community climate. The vast majority of residents responding to the survey agree with the statement, "I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula." Figure II -31 presents the results. Figure 11-31. feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula. Note: n=159. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Agree (94%) BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 22 Residents who do not feel welcome in Temecula explained that they were single parents, gay, of mixed race or not of the Christian faith and these factors made them feel unwelcome. Their comments include: • "As a divorced single mother, I find Temecula is not as welcoming as it was when I moved here as an intact family in 1993. This has to do with the "culture" of the community, as well as the social offerings. Because of this, I intend to move away from Temecula as soon as my high school freshman daughter goes to college." • "Both. I feel that there are issues concerning racism in the community." • "However I do have a special needs child and believe that law enforcement could be better trained on how to deal with situations that arise." • "I feel people like me are welcome but only people like me are welcome here. Most of the people that are like me are extremely xenophobic in this town and cannot deal with other cultures." • "I'm happy to be in a same sex relationship. I don't expect everyone to jump up for joy but I do expect for people to be respectful and tolerant. I don't have the "gay pride" flag flowing from my awning so the super conservatives might want to consider compromising a bit as well. ... I believe strongly in free speech but sometimes wish Temeculas were a bit more moderate. I would also like to personally thank our City Council for sticking up for peoples' freedom of religion by okaying the Mosque. I am proud to have elected you and thank you. Other than that I love this city. Oh and a HUGE THANK YOU for widening Winchester by the high school. That is my neck of the woods and it has really helped with congestion. Thanks again." • "I have been in Temecula since 1988. Married (now) I feel welcome. As a single parent, it was very difficult. Affordable after school programs were nearly non-existent. Transportation to and from school were not affordable if you don't live near school. It is very expensive to participate in sports, school or otherwise. As far as not feeling welcome, it is evolving somewhat now, but this city is very "traditional family friendly", but if your family deviates from the norm it is not welcoming." • "I personally feel welcome here because I have made my footprint by being very involved in schools and community activities, but in general I don't see that there is much room for single - parent families. I served on a school site council where a future mayor of the city of Temecula touted the wonder of Temecula based on its low percentage of single -parent families, and the low percentage of apartment dwellers. I was very insulted since both applied to me at the time." • "My family is mixed race and are consistently ignored in shopping centers or given undue unwanted negative attention." • "We are not members of a Christian religion." BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 23 Housing discrimination. Residents responded to several questions regarding fair housing and their past experience with housing discrimination, if any. Resident experience with housing discrimination. As shown in Figure II -32, only three percent of residents responding to the survey believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure. Figure 11-32. Do you think you have ever experienced housing discrimination? Note: n=155. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes (3%) Don't know (5%) No (9396) Those residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in housing offered the following descriptions of their experience: • "I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in." • "Realtor steering us away from certain homes." • "Single parent." • "We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller." Reporting housing discrimination. In response to their experience with housing discrimination, only one individual reported filing a complaint with the ACLU. One wrote a letter to the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) to complain about the real estate agent's steering practices. All residents were asked if they knew who to contact in the case that they experienced housing discrimination. As shown in Figure II -33, only one in ten respondents stated that they knew who to contact to report housing discrimination. Figure 11-33. If you ever felt you were discriminated against and wanted to report it, do you know who you would contact? Note: n=132. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes(11%) No (59%) Don't know (30%) BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 24 Those respondents who knew the organization to contact to report housing discrimination would contact: • Fair Housing of Riverside County; • CA DRE; • The Fair Housing hotline; • A lawyer; and • HUD; • Search the Internet. Fair housing resources. With regard to the availability and accessibility of fair housing resources in Temecula, half of stakeholders did not think sufficient information was available. Stakeholders made the following comments about the types of information, resources and training that would be helpful to them: • "Credit counseling." • "I have never seen any leaflets, flyers, or brochures concerning Fair Housing Laws available to the general public in Temecula. If they exist, where are they hidden?" • "Advertise workshops on how to obtain housing in the area." • "A more proactive approach in informing and educating the realtor community of availability of the information and where to send their clientele." Stakeholders suggested a variety of methods to inform them about fair housing issues. These included emails and websites, city and/or county public meetings, industry publications, government publications, internal memos or communications and providing speakers to organizations. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION II, PAGE 25 SECTION 111. Strategic Plan (*IiiO*) 03-5 Year Strateg.�c .5.04/vOEV�`O4 This document includes Narrative Responses to specific questions that grantees of the Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS and Emergency Shelter Grants Programs must respond to in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. NAME OF JURISDICTION: City of Temecula Consolidated Plan Time Period: 2012-2016 Executive Summary The Executive Summary is required. The Summary must include the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan and an evaluation of past performance. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Executive Summary: Introduction As an Entitlement Community receiving annual funding allocations from the Federal Government to fund local housing and community development needs, the City of Temecula is required to develop a Consolidated Plan once every five years. The Consolidated Plan serves as a comprehensive guide on how the City intends to utilize the allotted federal funds to address national objectives in a manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the local community. For each succeeding year, the City is required to prepare a one year Action Plan to notify citizens and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of the City's intended actions during that particular fiscal year. The annual Action Plan includes citizen and stakeholder input and due to HUD field office in Los Angeles 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The City of Temecula has prepared this draft First -Year Action Plan covering the time period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must also prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to provide information to HUD and Temecula citizens about the year's accomplishments. Beginning in 2012, the City of Temecula anticipates receiving approximately $475,000 annually through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to fund housing, community development and social service activities. The 2012 program year will be the first time Temecula has received CDBG directly, as an entitlement community. During 2012, the City will also receive an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA) 1 Community and Housing Profile The City of Temecula is a relatively new city, incorporated in 1989. During the past decade, the City experienced very strong population growth (73%). On average the City gained approximately 4,200 residents each year, reaching 100,097 in 2010. The City is somewhat of a bedroom community to surrounding major employment centers: Of Temecula's 42,540 employed residents, 53 percent work outside Riverside County. Forty-three percent commute to jobs in Los Angeles, Orange or San Diego cou nties Overall, the City of Temecula is relatively young, well educated and affluent. Even so, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled between 2000 and 2010, from 7 percent to 14 percent—perhaps reflective of the economic downturn. Most Temecula residents (57%) are non -Hispanic white. The City has a lower proportion of Hispanic residents than Riverside County and the state of California as a whole. Like many areas of California, Temecula experienced wide fluctuations in home values during the past decade. Home values increased rapidly from 2000 to 2005: the median value rose from $190,000 to $456,000. After 2007, values began falling and, between 2007 and 2010, home values decreased by 38 percent. It is not surprising, therefore, that nearly 50 percent of homeowners responding to the survey for this study owe more on their home than it is currently worth. Slightly more than one in ten are very concerned about their home going into foreclosure. Despite the recent drop in prices, home values as well as rental costs have increased overall since 2000. Both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. Temecula's median rent in 2010 was $1,252. Only 36 percent of the City's renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. About one-third of renters can afford the City's 2010 median home value of $289,800. A housing needs model prepared for this study found a shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula -45 percent of all renter households—earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 units affordable to these renters (11% of all rental units) leaving a gap of 3,177 units. Residents responding to the survey for this study report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and the income levels of minority and female -headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. 2 Resident and Stakeholder Priority Needs Over a five year period, Temecula plans to allocate its CDBG funds to address worst case needs, including: • Construction of a new community gym in a low income area; • Development of supportive/transitional housing in Temecula; • Development of a homeless shelter in Temecula; • Rehabilitation of a community center located in a low income area; • Replacement of equipment and accessibility improvements on two playgrounds located in low income areas; • Construction of new sidewalks in Old Town to improve accessibility; • Food, clothing, school supplies, emergency assistance and counseling services to low income children, at -risk families and homeless residents; • Services for at -risk youth and families who are victims of domestic violence and abuse; • Child care and afterschool care for low income children; • Health care services for un- and underinsured women; • Assistance with utilities costs for low income homeowners through solar equipment; and • Assistance with residential improvement for low income homeowners. This plan for allocating funds is consistent with the top priorities identified by residents and stakeholders who participated in development of the Consolidated Plan. Specifically: Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. During PY2012, the City intends to fund health care services for low income, un- and underinsured women, construct sidewalks, and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town. Therefore, the City will directly fund two of the three top priorities identified in the resident survey. ]ob creation activities will be conducted by the City in partnership with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. A goal of the City's Economic Development Element is to encourage job creation and economic development through revitalization activities, some of which will be funded by CDBG. Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. The City plans to fund tenant improvements to support the creation of a homeless shelter. In addition, public services dollars will be used to provide services and emergency assistance to residents who are homeless and at -risk of homelessness. 3 Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. As described above, the City has prioritized supportive services and improvement to youth facilities (playgrounds, community center). Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes for the 3-5 year Strategic Plan are: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL -1, SL -3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO -1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Outcomes DH -1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvementsSL-3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG fundingconstruct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. 4 Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowners Provide CDBG funding to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL -2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. EO -1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. Strategic Plan Due every three, four, or five years (length of period is at the grantee's discretion) no less than 45 days prior to the start of the grantee's program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15 and November 15. Mission: The City of Temecula's mission is to maintain a safe, secure, clean, healthy, and orderly community; to balance the utilization of open space, parks, trail facilities, public transportation, quality jobs, diverse housing, and adequate infrastructure; and to enhance and revitalize historic areas. 1 ANAGING THE PROCESS Consultation 91.200(b) 1. Identify the lead agency or entity for overseeing the development of the plan and the major public and private agencies responsible for administering programs covered by the consolidated plan. Lead agency. The lead agency for overseeing the development of the Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan and administering the Community Development Block Grant Program covered by the Consolidated Plan is the City of Temecula, Community Development Department. 5 2. Identify agencies, groups, and organizations that participated in the process. This should reflect consultation requirements regarding the following: • General §91.100 (a)(1) - Consult with public and private agencies that provide health services, social and fair housing services (including those focusing on services to children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, homeless persons) during the preparation of the plan. • Homeless strategy §91.100 (a)(2) — Consult with public and private agencies that provide assisted housing, health services, and social services to determine what resources are available to address the needs of any persons that are chronically homeless. • Lead lead-based paint hazards §91.100 (a)(3) — Consult with State or local health and child welfare agencies and examine existing data related to lead-based paint hazards and poisonings. • Adjacent governments §91.100 (a)(4) -- Notify adjacent governments regarding priority non -housing community development needs. Consultation with agencies, groups and organizations. As part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan development process, various MPOs, Riverside County departments, housing and community service providers, other jurisdictions, and other entities with a potential interest in, or knowledge of the City of Temecula's housing and non -housing community development issues were consulted. The primary methods by which the City consulted with adjacent governments and service providers were through Citizen Participation Meetings, a Needs Assessment Survey, email notifications, and public noticing in the local newspapers. Public agencies and service providers that were consulted include the following: — Housing Services: The Housing Authority (HA) of the County of Riverside — Fair Housing Services: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County — Health Services: Riverside County Department of Mental Health — Social Services: Riverside County Department of Public Social Services — Homeless Services: Riverside County Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) Board — Lead-based Paint: County Department of Public Health, Office of Industrial Hygiene; California Department of Public Health — Variety of service agencies via direct mailings to individuals and agencies that have previously expressed an interest in housing and community development in the City 6 The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. The industries and professions represented included: ■ Affordable housing provision; ■ Neighborhood stabilization; ■ Child protective services; ■ Rental property owners and managers; ■ Fair housing; ■ Residential development; ■ Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; ■ Sales; ■ Higher education; ■ Senior services; ■ Homeless services; ■ Services for low income residents; ■ Landlord/tenant services; ■ Services for single mothers; ■ Lending; ■ Social services; and ■ Manufacturing; ■ Youth development. Metropolitan planning §91.100 (a)(5) -- Consult with adjacent units of general local government, including local government agencies with metropolitan -wide planning responsibilities, particularly for problems and solutions that go beyond a single jurisdiction, i.e. transportation, workforce development, economic development, etc. The City of Temecula regularly works with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and San Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) regarding metropolitan -wide planning issues, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The City is currently working on a multi -jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities' concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The City has partnered with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the cities of Murrieta, Wildomar, and Lake Elsinore to implement solutions that go beyond our jurisdiction. • HOPWA §91.100 (b) -- Largest city in EMSA consult broadly to develop metropolitan -wide strategy for addressing needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. N/A • Public housing §91.100 (c) -- Consult with the local public housing agency concerning public housing needs, planned programs, and activities. N/A; there is no local public housing agency in Temecula. Citizen Participation 91.200 (b) 3. Based on the jurisdiction's current citizen participation plan, provide a summary of the citizen participation process used in the development of the consolidated plan. Temecula's Consolidated Plan was developed with a strong emphasis on community input. To broaden participation in the Plan, the City provided a number of opportunities for public input including surveys, public meetings and focus groups and the 30 -day draft public comment period. 7 Specifically, ■ The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the City's website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. ■ On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. ■ Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. These efforts resulted in participation by 176 residents and 30 stakeholders in the development of the Consolidated Plan. Include a description of actions taken to encourage participation of all its residents, including the following: a. low and moderate income residents where housing and community development funds may be spent; b. minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities; c. local and regional institutions and other organizations (including businesses, developers, community and faith -based organizations); d. residents of public and assisted housing developments and recipients of tenant - based assistance; e. residents of targeted revitalization areas. The City distributed a flyer about the Consolidated Plan process and surveys to social service agencies and local nonprofits and encouraged them to make the surveys available to their clients. The City marketed the survey in the area west of I-15, where low income household concentrations are located. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the City's website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. The survey was advertised for over a month on the website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. Approximately 16 percent of residents completing the survey earned low to moderate income. One in ten respondents indicated that a member of their household has a disability. Eleven percent of survey respondents were of Hispanic descent and 16 percent were of a race other than White (Hispanic or non -Hispanic). 8 The City also actively engaged staff of social service agencies and nonprofits in development of the Plan through focus groups. An exercise was completed which allowed stakeholders to rate the top needs in the City and prioritize the City's annual allocation of CDBG. Examples of the materials used in the public and stakeholder outreach appear at the end of Appendix A. 4. Provide a description of the process used to allow citizens to review and submit comments on the proposed consolidated plan, including how the plan (or a summary of the plan) was published for review; the dates, times and locations of a public hearing, or hearings; when and how notice was provided to citizens of the hearing(s); the dates of the 30 day citizen comment period, and if technical assistance was provided to groups developing proposals for funding assistance under the consolidated plan and how this assistance was provided. The draft Consolidated Plan was published in the local newspaper to notice the 30 -day public comment review period beginning on March 1, 2012. The draft Consolidated Plan was heard by the Temecula City Council at a publicly noticed meeting on April 10, 2012, located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590. The City Council meeting was noticed in the local newspaper for 14 days. 5. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views received on the plan and explain any comments not accepted and reasons why these comments were not accepted. Comments will be added here once they are received during the draft comment period. The City accepted all comments during the citizen participation process. *Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP Tool. Housing Needs 91.205 *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit CHAS Table from: http://socds. hud user.org/scripts/od bic. exe/chas/index. htm *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Needs/Housing Table 6. In this narrative, describe the estimated housing needs projected for the next five year period for the following categories of persons: extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle income families, renters and owners, elderly persons, persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, single persons, large families, public housing residents, victims of domestic violence, families on the public housing and section 8 tenant -based waiting list, and discuss specific housing problems, including: cost -burden, severe cost- burden, substandard housing, and overcrowding (especially large families) and substandard conditions being experienced by extremely low income, low income, moderate income, and middle income renters and owners compare to the jurisdiction as a whole The jurisdiction must define the terms "standard condition" and "substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation." 9 7. To the extent that any racial or ethnic group has a disproportionately greater need for any income category in comparison to the needs of that category as a whole, the jurisdiction must provide an assessment of that specific need. For this purpose, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least ten percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Housina Needs response: A full discussion of the housing needs for low income residents and special populations can be found in Section I of the Consolidated Plan, which discusses the housing problems of cost burden, severe cost burden, substandard housing and overcrowding. Projected needs, 2015: Extremely low income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 2,079 rental units for renters earning less than 30% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, extremely low income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 2,641 units in 2015. Very low income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 1,261 rental units for renters earning between 30% and 50% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, very low income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 1,602 units in 2015. Low and moderate income renters. The gaps analysis completed for the Consolidated Plan found a current need for 1,271 rental units for renters earning between 50% and 80% of the HUD MFI per year. If the City maintains its current population growth, low and moderate income renters experience the same population growth as the City overall, and no new units are developed to assist this group, this need will increase to 1,614 units in 2015. Middle income renters. No current need; no future need estimated. Extremely low and very low income owners. 1,501 extremely low and very low income owners were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could exceed 1,900. Low moderate income owners. Another 1,815 low and moderate income owners were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could exceed 2,300. Middle income and all other owners. There were also 7,800 owners earning above 80% of the HUD MFI that were cost burdened in 2010. By 2015, this could reach nearly 10,000. Elderly persons. The Needs table completed for the Plan indicates that there are 2,245 elderly residents with housing needs; 896 are frail elderly. From 2000 to 2010, the City's population of elderly grew faster than the general population overall. If this continues through 2015, the number of frail elderly with housing needs will increase to 3,300 for all elderly and 1,3,00 for frail elderly Persons with disabilities. CHAS data report that 559 developmentally disabled residents and 724 physically disabled residents in Temecula have housing needs. These needs could increase to 800 and 1,030, respectively. 10 Families. New data on the specific housing needs of residents by family type are not available for 2010. To the extent that these populations have housing needs in the next five years, they are captured in the needs projections by income categories above. Public housing residents/Section 8 voucher holders. The Riverside Housing Authority has a waiting list of more than 50,000 households. If two percent of these are Temecula residents (the same proportion of voucher holders), the number of Temecula residents on the wait list could increase to 1,400 in five years. Also, see the CHAS data included in the Needs tables located in Appendix C. Housing conditions. Section I of the Consolidated Plan discusses cost burden, severe cost burden and substandard condition. Because the City's housing stock is so new, there are very few units in substandard condition. For the purposes of this Consolidated Plan, severely substandard housing is defined as housing units lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities and are not intended primarily for recreational use (e.g., a casita used like a cabin). According to the 2010 ACS, 60 housing units in Temecula lack complete plumbing and 47 units lack complete kitchens. As many as 107 units in the City could be in severely substandard condition. These units represent 0.3 percent of the occupied housing stock. Of the 107 substandard housing units, 56 percent were owner occupied and 44 percent were renter occupied. In 2000, 7 percent of units were overcrowded. According to the ACS, in 2010 that number dropped to 4 percent, or 1,184 units. Nine percent of Hispanic households are overcrowded compared with 2 percent of non -Hispanic white households. Cost burden is a more significant problem in Temecula. As the following table shows, cost burden has increased substantially during the decade and, as of 2010, more than half of renters and owners in the City were cost burdened. Cost Burdened Households, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Cost Burdened 2,011 43% Severely Cost Burdened 1,000 21% 5,930 63% 3,756 40% IOwners Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened 4,519 36% 11,124 52% 1,168 9% 4,855 23% Disproportionate need. According to HUD CHAS data, among extremely low income households, Native Americans and persons of Hispanic descent were more likely to have housing problems than the average household. These same groups, along with African American households were also more likely to have housing problems among low to moderate income households. Each of these minority groups had a likelihood of housing problems that was at least 10 percentage points greater than the percentage of persons in the category as a whole. 11 Homeless Needs 91.205 (c) *Refer to the Homeless Needs Table 1A or the CPMP Tool's Needs.xls workbook 8. Homeless Needs— The jurisdiction must provide a concise summary of the nature and extent of homelessness in the jurisdiction, (including rural homelessness and chronic homelessness where applicable), addressing separately the need for facilities and services for homeless persons and homeless families with children, both sheltered and unsheltered, and homeless subpopulations, in accordance with Table 1A. The summary must include the characteristics and needs of low income individuals and children, (especially extremely low income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered. 9. Describe, to the extent information is available, the nature and extent of homelessness by racial and ethnic group. A quantitative analysis is not required. If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at -risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at -risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Homeless Needs response: Riverside County conducts the region's annual Point in Time (PIT) Count of homeless individuals. The most recently published PIT, conducted in January of 2011, reports homeless tabulations for Riverside County, and a total number of homeless persons located in Temecula. Since homeless subpopulations were not provided for Temecula in the PIT, the homeless population of Temecula was assumed to have the same characteristics as Riverside County as a whole. For example, since three percent of the total homeless population was located in Temecula, three percent of the chronically homeless were also assumed to be located in Temecula. Since there is not a homeless shelter in Temecula, the entire homeless population of Temecula is assumed to be unsheltered . According to the 2011 PIT, there were 162 people who were homeless in Temecula. An estimated 148 of these people were individuals and 14 were persons in families with children. Sixty-six were estimated to be chronically homeless. The following table displays the estimated number of homeless individuals in Temecula by subpopulation, gender, race and ethnicity. The gender, race and ethnicity estimates are based on responses to a survey conducted in conjunction with the PIT. 12 Homeless Population of Temecula, 2011 Source: Riverside County January 2011 Point -in -Time Count Report. Total Percent Homeless Individuals 148 91% Persons in Homeless Family Units 14 9% Total 162 Homeless Subpopulations Chronically Homeless 66 41% Severely Mentally III 48 30% Chronic Substance Abuse 75 46% Veterans 23 14% Persons with HIV/AIDS 5 3% Victims of Domestic Violence 19 12% Youth (Under 18 years of age) 3 2% Gender Male 96 59% Female 62 38% Unknown 5 3% Race and Ethnicity White/Caucasian 73 45% Hispanic/Latino 44 27% Black/African American 31 19% Other 15 9% A lower bound estimate of the City's population of persons at risk of homelessness can be calculated using HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data from 2000. The CHAS data provide estimates of severe cost -burden and housing need for low income households with various characteristics. In general, households with the highest risk factors for homelessness tend to have the lowest incomes and have trouble paying their housing costs. They are also more likely to be renters and have limited social supports. The following table shows the estimated number of persons at risk of homelessness by household category for the City of Temecula. At -Risk of Homelessness: Extremely Low Income and Severely Cost Burdened Households, Temecula, 2010 Source: BBC Research and Consulting, U.S. Census Bureau 200 and 2010 Census and SOCDS CHAS database. Total at Risk of Renters Owners Homelessness Elderly 95 24 119 Small Families 267 178 444 Large Families 121 57 178 Other Households 190 5 196 Total 673 264 937 13 Non -homeless Special Needs 91.205 (d) including HOPWA *Please also refer to the Non -homeless Special Needs Tables 1A & 1B or, in the CPMP Tool, the Needs.xls workbook. 10. Estimate, to the extent practicable, the number of persons in various subpopulations that are not homeless but may require housing or supportive services, including the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction, victims of domestic violence, public housing residents, and any other categories the jurisdiction may specify and describe their supportive housing needs. The jurisdiction can use the Non -Homeless Special Needs Table (Table 1B or Needs.xls in CPMP Tool) of their Consolidated Plan to help identify these needs. *Note: HOPWA recipients must identify the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families that will be served in the metropolitan area. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Non -homeless Special Needs response: Please see the Non -homeless Special Needs Table that is attached in Appendix C. Lead-based Paint 91.205 (e) 11. Estimate the number of housing units* that contain lead-based paint hazards, as defined in section 1004 of the Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, and are occupied by extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families. *If using the CPMP Tool, this number can be provided on the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls file. 3-5 Year Strategic Plan Lead-based Paint response: Less than one percent of the City's housing stock was built before 1940, when lead-based paint was most common. Another 1.2 percent of the City's housing was built between 1940 and 1960, when lead-based paint was still used but the amount of lead in the paint was being reduced. If (as HUD estimates), 90 percent of the pre -1940 units in Temecula are at risk of containing lead-based paint, 80 percent of the units built between 1940 and 1960 are at risk, and 62 percent of units built between 1960 and 1979 are at risk then as many as 1,726 Temecula housing units (6%) may contain lead paint. Of these units, an estimated 322 are occupied by low income households. Housing Market Analysis 91.210 Refer to the Housing Market Analysis Table in the Needs.xls workbook 14 12. Based on information available to the jurisdiction, describe the significant characteristics of the housing market in terms of supply, demand, condition, and the cost of housing; the housing stock available to serve persons with disabilities; and to serve persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. 13. Provide an estimate; to the extent information is available, of the number of vacant or abandoned buildings and whether units in these buildings are suitable for rehabilitation. 3-5 Year Strateaic Plan Housing Market Analysis responses: Housing market analysis. Please see Section I (Housing and Community Profile) for a complete analysis of the Temecula Housing Market, including a gaps exercise that estimates unmet demand for low income renters and renters who want to buy a home. The City does not maintain a current inventory of vacant or abandoned buildings and their suitability for rehabilitation. Public and Assisted Housing 91.210 (b) 14. In cooperation with the public housing agency or agencies located within its boundaries, describe the needs of public housing, including a. the number of public housing units in the jurisdiction, b. the physical condition of such units, c. the restoration and revitalization needs of public housing projects within the jurisd iction, d. the number of families on public housing and tenant -based waiting lists and e. results from the Section 504 needs assessment of public housing projects located within its boundaries (i.e. assessment of needs of tenants and applicants on waiting list for accessible units as required by 24 CFR 8.25). N/A. The jurisdiction can use the optional Priority Public Housing Needs Table of the Consolidated Plan to identify priority public housing needs to assist in this process. 15. Describe the number and targeting (income level and type of household served) of units currently assisted by local, state, or federally funded programs, and an assessment of whether any such units are expected to be lost from the assisted housing inventory for any reason, (i.e. expiration of Section 8 contracts). Temecula's Redevelopment Agency has financed twelve affordable housing projects within the City, creating 574 multi -family rental units to serve low and moderate income families within the City of Temecula. The redevelopment agency focuses on improving blighted conditions, which are often found in under -resourced areas. As a result, most affordable development projects are concentrated in the low income portions of the City. 15 Affordable Housing and Low Income Concentration, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas, City of Temecula and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend * Subsidize] Housing eiryorTemecula Less than 19O% _ 19.06 to 39.0% More than 39.0% The following figure summarizes the City's inventory of affordable housing developments and the number of Section 8 vouchers currently being used in the City of Temecula. As of January, 2012, there are 710 families receiving some form of rental housing assistance in Temecula. Affordable Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, City of Temecula, 2012 Source: Housing Authority of Riverside County and BBC Research & Consulting. Affordable Housing Number Developments in Temecula of Units Rancho Creek Apts. Rancho West Apts. Mission Village Apts. Riverbank Senior Apts. Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 30 150 76 65 24 22 Temecula Reflections 11 Summerhouse Warehouse at Creekside Oaktree Apts. Rancho California Apts. Creekside Apts. 20 32 40 55 49 Total Units 574 Section 8 Voucers used in Temecula Total Rental Subsidized Units/Vouchers 136 710 16 Homeless Inventory 91.210 (c) 16. The jurisdiction shall provide a concise summary of the existing facilities and services (including a brief inventory) that assist homeless persons and families with children and subpopulations identified in Table 1A or in the CPMP Tool Needs Table. These include outreach and assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, access to permanent housing, and activities to prevent low income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low income) from becoming homeless. This inventory of facilities should include (to the extent it is available to the jurisdiction) an estimate of the percentage or number of beds and supportive services programs that are serving people that are chronically homeless. The City does not currently have a homeless shelter or transitional or permanent housing to assist persons who are homeless. The City's various social service agencies may assist persons who are homeless through their programs that target low income households. The City recognizes the need for developing facilities to assist persons who are homeless and has made this a high priority for the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period. The jurisdiction can use the optional Continuum of Care Housing Activity Chart and Service Activity Chart to meet this requirement. Special Need Facilities and Services 91.210 (d) 17. Describe, to the extent information is available, the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. Please refer to the Non -Homeless Needs table in Appendix C for the number of residents with special needs who require supportive services. Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.210 (e) 18. Explain whether the cost of housing or the incentives to develop, maintain, or improve affordable housing are affected by public policies, particularly those of the local jurisdiction. Such policies include tax policy affecting land and other property, land use controls, zoning ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limits, and policies that affect the return on residential investment. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City's zoning regulations (lack of definition of "family" and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). 17 STRATEGIC PLAN The strategic plan must describe how the jurisdiction plans to provide new or improved availability, affordability, and sustainability of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity, principally for extremely low, low income, and moderate income residents General Priority Needs Analysis and Strategies 91.215 (a) 19. In this narrative, describe the reasons for setting priorities for allocating investment among different activities and needs, as identified in tables* prescribed by HUD. 92.215(a)(1) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 1A Homeless and Special Needs Population; Table 18 Special Needs (Non -Homeless) Populations; Table 2A Priority Housing Needs/Investment Plan Table; and Table 28 Priority Community Development Needs. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Needs Table file: Needs.xls The activities outlined in the Strategic Plan cannot be implemented simultaneously due to limitations of funding and organizational capacity. Therefore, the City must prioritize how funds will be allocated to address the unmet housing and community development needs. For the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan period, the City has developed the following priorities for meeting the housing and community development needs identified in the Consolidated Plan and AI. These priorities are based on the quantitative needs identified through the housing market analysis; analysis of the needs of special populations; and input from citizens and stakeholders through the community meetings and surveys. High priority needs • Provide housing and support services for special needs populations. • Improve conditions in economically challenged neighborhoods and/or for low income residents. • Provide programs and services to assist families and persons who are homeless find shelter and transitional housing and access needed services. • Increase accessibility in the City for persons with disabilities, including sidewalks and accessible housing. Medium priority needs • Preserve the supply of affordable ownership stock through rehabilitation. • Increase the supply of affordable housing for renters earning less than $20,000 per year. • Assist residents with job training and employment needs. Low priority needs • Reduce lead-based paint hazards in housing. • Increase awareness and knowledge of fair housing among City Departments, Boards and residents. 18 20. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed. 21. If applicable, identify the census tracts for Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas and/or any local targeted areas. NjA 22. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a)(1)) and the basis for assigning the priority (including the relative priority, where required) given to each category of priority needs (91.215(a)(2)). 23. If appropriate, the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas and/or any local targeted areas. N/A 24. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. Geographic allocation. The City of Temecula will direct assistance to low to moderate income Census Tracts in the City—primarily those areas located west of I-15 and in the central city. (No areas of racial concentration have been identified in Temecula). In addition to directing assistance to low to moderate income areas, the City will provide direct assistance to limited clientele populations. Obstacles to meeting needs. As mentioned above, the primary obstacles to meeting the needs of underserved residents in the City of Temecula are lack of funding, especially given the elimination of the Redevelopment Agency in February 2012. Specific Objectives 91.215 (a) (4) 25. Summarize priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD. Outcomes must be categorized as providing either new or improved availability/accessibility, affordability, or sustainability of decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunity. Goals and objectives to be carried out during the strategic plan period are indicated by placing a check in the following boxes. INI Objective Category: Decent Housing Which includes: 1 Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: RI Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: assisting homeless persons obtain affordable housing improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods job creation and retention assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration of property and facilities establishment, stabilization and expansion of small business (including micro - businesses) retaining the affordable housing stock increasing the access to quality public and private facilities the provision of public services concerned with employment 19 Goals and objectives ...(continued) II n bjective Categor - recent Housing hich includes: •bjective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities hich includes: •bjective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities hich includes: increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low income and moderate income families, particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods the provision of jobs to low income persons living in areas affected by those programs and activities under programs covered by the plan increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/ADOS) to live in dignity and independence restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value U availability of mortgage financing for low income persons at reasonable rates using non- discriminatory lending practices providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities 7 conserving energy resources and use of renewable energy sources access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long- term economic social viability of the community The following objectives and outcomes the City of Temecula plans to fulfill during the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period were developed using HUD's framework: Availability/ 1 Accessibility Affordability Sustainability Decent Housing Suitable Living Environment Economic Opportunity D H-1 SL -1 EO -1 D H-2 SL -2 EO -2 DH -3 SL -3 EO -3 2012-2013 Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes forthe 3-5 year Strategic Plan: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. 20 Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL -1, SL -3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO -1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Outcomes DH -1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvements. SL -3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG funding construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowner Provide CDBG funding to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL -2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. EO -1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. 21 Priority Housing Needs 91.215 (b) 26. Describe the relationship between the allocation priorities and the extent of need given to each category specified in the Housing Needs Table (Table 2A or Needs.xls). These categories correspond with special tabulations of U.S. census data provided by HUD for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. 27. Provide an analysis of how the characteristics of the housing market and the severity of housing problems and needs of each category of residents provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority housing need category, particularly among extremely low income, low income, and moderate income households. Note: Family and income types may be grouped in the case of closely related categories of residents where the analysis would apply to more than one family or income type. 28. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. The City of Temecula recognizes that many residents have housing needs. Indeed, the housing market analysis conducted for this study found a shortage of 3,177 rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In addition, more than 50 percent of renters and owners in the City are cost burdened. In the current economic climate, there are limited opportunities and funding available to provide affordable housing opportunities. They City will attempt to seek new partnerships in the upcoming year and throughout the Consolidated Planning period. Specifically, the City will continue to address affordable housing needs through the following programs: Section 8 Rental Assistance: The City will continue to provide Section 8 rental assistance to extremely low and low income households through the Riverside County Housing Authority Voucher Program. Approximately 136 low income renter -households will be assisted in the City. Mortaaae Credit Certificates: The City participates with the County of Riverside in its Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program as a means of providing financial assistance for the purchase of single-family housing. A mortgage credit certificate is a certificate authorizing first-time home buyers to take a federal income tax credit of up to 15 percent of the annual interest paid on the mortgage. The program targets low and moderate income households. Specific Objectives/Affordable Housing 91.215 (b) Note: Specific affordable housing objectives must specify the number of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income households to whom the jurisdiction will provide affordable housing as defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership. (24 CFR 91.215(b)(2) 22 29. Identify each specific housing objective by number (DH -1, DH -2, DH -2), proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a specified time period, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls file. 30. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. 31. Indicate how the characteristics of the housing market will influence the use of funds made available for rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of old units, or acquisition of existing units. 32. If the jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds for tenant -based rental assistance, specify local market conditions that led to the choice of that option. N/A Five Year Priority Housing Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. the City will accomplish the following affordable housing goals: DH -1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing Provide CDBG funding to support the development of a homeless shelter. Provide CDBG funding to assist low income homeowners with residential improvements. SL -3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to construct solar systems for low income homeowners Public Housing Strategy 91.215 (c) 33. Describe the public housing agency's strategy to serve the needs of extremely low income, low income, and moderate income families residing in the jurisdiction served by the public housing agency (including families on the public housing and section 8 tenant -based waiting list). 34. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for addressing the revitalization and restoration needs of public housing projects within the jurisdiction and improving the management and operation of such public housing. 35. Describe the public housing agency's strategy for improving the living environment of extremely low income, low income, and moderate families residing in public housing. 23 36. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing and activities it will undertake to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. (NAHA Sec. 105 (b)(11) and (91.215 (k)) 37. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such designation. (NAHA Sec. 105 (g)) The Riverside Housing Authority was interviewed as part of the development of the Consolidated Plan and AI. Please see the Public Housing Authority section in the AI for a discussion of the housing authority's practices and policies. None of the public housing units owned and operated by the Riverside Housing Authority are located in Temecula. Approximately two percent of the housing authority's voucher holders—or about 136 households—reside in Temecula. Priority Homeless Needs *Refer to the Homeless Needs Table 1A or the CPMP Tool's Needs.xls workbook 38. Describe the jurisdiction's choice of priority needs and allocation priorities, based on reliable data meeting HUD standards and reflecting the required consultation with homeless assistance providers, homeless persons, and other concerned citizens regarding the needs of homeless families with children and individuals. 39. Provide an analysis of how the needs of each category of residents (listed in question #38) provided the basis for determining the relative priority of each priority homeless need category. 40. Provide a brief narrative addressing gaps in services and housing for the sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless. A community should give a high priority to chronically homeless persons, where the jurisdiction identifies sheltered and unsheltered chronic homeless persons in its Homeless Needs Table - Homeless Populations and Subpopulations. Please see the Homeless table in Appendix C for gaps in provision of housing and services to persons who are homeless. The City recognizes the need for developing facilities to assist persons who are homeless and has made this a high priority for the 2012-2016 Consolidated Planning period. 24 Homeless Strategy 91.215 (d) Homelessness 41. Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for developing a system to address homelessness and the priority needs of homeless persons and families (including the subpopulations identified in the needs section). The jurisdiction's strategy must consider the housing and supportive services needed in each stage of the process which includes preventing homelessness, outreach/assessment, emergency shelters and services, transitional housing, and helping homeless persons (especially any persons that are chronically homeless) make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 42. Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for helping extremely low and low income individuals and families who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Chronic Homelessness 43. Describe the jurisdiction's strategy for eliminating chronic homelessness. This should include the strategy for helping homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. This strategy should, to the maximum extent feasible, be coordinated with the strategy presented in Exhibit 1 of the Continuum of Care (CoC) application and any other strategy or plan to eliminate chronic homelessness. 44. Describe the efforts to increase coordination between housing providers, health, and service agencies in addressing the needs of persons that are chronically homeless. (91.215(1)) Homelessness Prevention 45. Describe the jurisdiction's strategy to help prevent homelessness for individuals and families with children who are at imminent risk of becoming homeless. Institutional Structure 46. Briefly describe the institutional structure, including private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, through which the jurisdiction will carry out its homelessness strategy. Discharge Coordination Policy 47. Every jurisdiction receiving McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Supportive Housing, Shelter Plus Care, or Section 8 SRO Program funds must develop and implement a Discharge Coordination Policy, to the maximum extent practicable. Such a policy should include "policies and protocols for the discharge of persons from publicly funded institutions or systems of care (such as health care facilities, foster care or other youth facilities, or correction programs and institutions) in order to prevent such discharge from immediately resulting in homelessness for such persons." The jurisdiction should describe its planned activities to implement a cohesive, community -wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how the community will move toward such a policy. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula's homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public 25 sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. Specific Objectives/Homeless (91.215) 48. Identify specific objectives that the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD, and how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. For each specific objective, identify proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms over a specified time period (one, two, three or more years) or in other measurable terms as defined by the ju risd iction. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. Five Year Homeless Objectives The City's five-year objectives which will assist persons who are homeless include: Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Provide CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing the City will provide CDBG funding to support at the development of a homeless shelter. Persons who are homeless and at -risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and other social service providers. CDBG funds will be provided to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents, many of whom are also at risk of homelessness: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families • Fair housing outreach and education 26 E ON -HOMELESS SPECIAL NEEDS *Refer to Table 1B Non -Homeless Special Needs or the CPMP Tool's Needs.xls workbook Priority Non -Homeless Needs 91.215 (e) 49. Identify the priority housing and supportive service needs of persons who are not homeless but may or may not require supportive housing, i.e., elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities (mental, physical, developmental, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families), persons with alcohol or other drug addiction by using the Non- homeless Special Needs Table. 50. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs. 51. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. 52. To the extent information is available, describe the facilities and services that assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and programs for ensuring that persons returning from mental and physical health institutions receive appropriate supportive housing. 53. If the jurisdiction plans to use HOME or other tenant based rental assistance to assist one or more of these subpopulations, it must justify the need for such assistance in the plan. N/A Please see the Non -Homeless Special Needs table in Appendix C. Specific Special Needs Objectives 91.215 (e) 54. Identify each specific objective developed to address a priority need by number and contain proposed accomplishments and outcomes the jurisdiction expects to achieve in quantitative terms through related activities over a specified time period (i.e. one, two, three or more years), or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction may satisfy this requirement by using Table 1C or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Projects.xls worksheets 55. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. The City's special needs objectives will be realized through activities that benefit low income areas, low income households and special needs households directly—e.g., through ADA improvements to playgrounds and sidewalks. 27 Five Year Special Needs Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL -1, SL -3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Activities include: SL -3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG funding to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG funding to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neighborhood. With CDBG funding construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. Provide CDBG to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk youth • Health care for low income women without health insurance • Fair housing outreach and education SL -2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). With CDBG funding provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. 28 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Priority Community Development Needs 91.215 (f) *Refers to Table 2B or to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook 56. Identify the jurisdiction's priority non -housing community development needs eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community Development Needs Table* - i.e., public facilities, public improvements, public services and economic development. 57. Describe the basis for assigning the priority given to each category of priority needs provided on Table 2B or the Community Development Table in the CPMP Tool's Needs.xls worksheet. 58. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs. Specific Community Development Objectives 59. Identify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives (including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91.1 and the primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons. Complete and submit Table 2C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. NOTE: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number and contain proposed accomplishments, the time period (i. e., one, two, three, or more years), and annual program year numeric goals the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other measurable terms as identified and defined by the jurisdiction. 24 CFR 91.215(a)(4) Five Year Priority Community Development Objectives Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO -1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. These objectives will be met through the following activities: SL -3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide CDBG to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide CDBG funding to construct a new gym in a low income neighborhood Provide CDBG to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. 29 Provide CDBG to design and construct a new play structure, install an irrigation system and provide new picnic equipment at Rotary Park, located in a low income neig hborhood. With CDBG, construct new sidewalks and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town, which will increase accessibility for persons with physical disabilities. EO -1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. In addition, the city will continue other economic development efforts. The City of Temecula's Economic Development Program develops relationships and provides creative strategy in an effort to improve the economic viability of Temecula. The goals for the next five years are driven by three guiding principles of diversifying the local tax base, grow/retain higher wage jobs and support local business vitality. Specifically: • Encouraging the growth and expansion of desired industry by providing high quality municipal services, facilities and economic development assistance. • Leveraging our strong relationships with the Riverside County EDA, SW Riverside EDC, Temecula Chamber of Commerce and Convention and Visitors Bureau. • Establish a proactive continuing dialogue between the City and educational institutions, including school districts, community colleges and universities • Continual marketing and promotion of Temecula in conjunction with current demographic trends and retail analysis Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas 91.215(g) 60. If the jurisdiction has one or more approved Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas, the jurisdiction must provide, with the submission of a new Consolidated Plan, either: the prior HUD -approved strategy, or strategies, with a statement that there has been no change in the strategy (in which case, HUD approval for the existing strategy is not needed a second time) or submit a new or amended neighborhood revitalization strategy, or strategies, (for which separate HUD approval would be required) . The City of Temecula will need to request a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) designation, as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CPD Notice 96-01. The western portion of the City is comprised with some of the most distressed residential neighborhoods in the City and may qualify for NRSAs based on the high percentage of low and moderate income (LMI) residents. Currently, there is no NRSA designation in the City. 30 Many of the goals and objectives of a designated NRSA continue to be addressed through the implementation of several short- and long-term targeted programs and projects. However, an NRSA designation would enhance these efforts by: • Developing complementary strategies that prioritize the use of CDBG resources; • Encouraging the development of innovative services and projects eligible for CDBG support; and • Embarking on programs and projects to improve neighborhood cohesion by alleviating economic and social disparity. N/A Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.215 (h) 61. Describe the strategy to remove or ameliorate negative effects of public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing, except that, if a State requires a unit of general local government to submit a regulatory barrier assessment that is substantially equivalent to the information required under this part, as determined by HUD, the unit of general local government may submit that assessment to HUD and it shall be considered to have complied with this requirement. Examination of Barriers. Barriers to affordable housing are frequently caused when the incentive to develop such housing is removed due to excessive development costs, governmental regulation, and community opposition. Some development costs are driven by economic conditions and other factors that affect the real estate market. These are often beyond the control of local government policies. Public policy approved by local government to address community issues and concerns potentially affects the cost of all development projects through the adoption and implementation of ordinances, housing elements, land use plans, fee schedules, and development standards. The imposition of additional taxes on homeowners increases the cost of maintaining and living in a house or apartment and can be a barrier to home ownership, particularly for low and moderate income households. Moreover, public opposition over the location of affordable housing can be detrimental to a project once it enters the public hearing process and may result in the denial of the project. The primary purpose of governmental regulation of land development is to guide development in an orderly fashion, ensure adequate provision of public services and facilities, protect existing development from incompatible land uses, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Government regulation is generally beneficial to the housing needs of the public, since the development review and approval process is necessary to insure decent and safe housing. In the City of Temecula, the primary barriers to affordable housing are not created through local policies. Recently, the largest barrier to affordable housing is the elimination of the City's Redevelopment Agency. Historically, the Redevelopment Housing set-aside fund has provided all of the funding for affordable housing development. 31 The City has made a concerted effort to streamline the development process, and offers fee waivers for some development fees. The City completed an update to the Housing Element in 2008 that examined barriers to housing development. The Housing Element Update 2008-2014 did not reveal any significant barriers to affordable housing, although it does contain goals and policies to facilitate affordable housing development. The City's Housing Element Update 2008-2014 includes implementation of the following programs: • Density Bonus Program: Encourages development of housing for low income households by incorporating the Development Code density bonus provisions for affordable and senior housing development. • Mortgage Revenue Bond Financing: Increases the supply of rental and ownership units affordable to Low and Moderate Income households by working with Riverside County in securing tax exempt Mortgage Revenue Bond financing. • Section 202 Elderly or Handicapped Housing: Provides housing and related facilities for the elderly and handicapped by supporting all viable non-profit entities seeking Section 202 funding. • Second Units: Provides increased affordable housing opportunities to low income households by permitting second units on residential lots zoned for single- and multi -family residential use. • Priority Processing for Affordable Housing: Facilitates production of affordable housing through priority processing of affordable housing projects. • Modify Development Fees: Provide incentives to developers of affordable/senior housing through fee reductions or the addition of fee waiver provisions for the production of low income and senior citizen housing. • Ensure Adequate Infrastructure: Immediately consulting with developers interested in developing areas that currently do not have adequate infrastructure to ensure that all new development is adequately served by sewer lines, and other infrastructure. Removing Barriers: The City uses a multi -faceted strategy to address barriers to affordable housing. A major focus involves the use of both financial and processing assistance to maximize as many housing units as possible. This approach allows the City to quantify affordable housing production and make adjustments to development strategies as necessary. Development fees and approval delays add to the cost of development. In addition, inflation can increase the cost of both materials and labor. These factors combined with negative public perceptions serve as a major disincentive to the construction of affordable housing and are seen as obstacles by qualified developers. The City implements the following policies as mitigation for potentially foreseen barriers to affordable housing: • Project Manager: The designation of a staff liaison to work specifically with affordable housing developers and their representatives. • Fee Subsidies: Under certain circumstances, the City will subsidize the payment of development fees. 32 • Public Outreach: The City will continue to educate the public about the social and economic benefits of affordable housing. • Fast Track and Priority Processing: Expedite the construction of affordable housing projects through all phases of the approval process. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City's zoning regulations (lack of definition of "family" and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). Lead-based Paint 91.215 (i) 62. Describe the jurisdiction's plan to evaluate and reduce lead-based paint hazards and describe how lead based paint hazards will be integrated into housing policies and programs, and how the plan for the reduction of lead-based hazards is related to the extent of lead poisoning and hazards. The primary programs that will mitigate lead based paint hazards will be the City's Residential Improvement Program, which includes provisions to reduce lead-based paint hazards, and new construction of affordable units to increase the supply of quality affordable housing. Antipoverty Strategy 91.215 (j) 63. Describe the jurisdiction's goals, programs, and policies for reducing the number of poverty level families (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget and revised annually. Poverty is defined by the Social Security Administration as the minimum income an individual must have to survive at a particular point in time. Although there are many causes of poverty, some of the "more pronounced" causes of poverty include the following : • Low income -earning capability; • Low educational attainments and job skills; • Discrimination; and • Person limitations (e.g. developmental and physical disabilities, mental illness, drug/alcohol dependency, etc.) Some other important causes of poverty related to those mentioned above include: unemployment or underemployment; lack of affordable, decent housing; negative images of people who are recipients of assistance; the lack of available funding; and lack of policy and widespread community support for poverty issues (this includes the lack of additional federal and state funding programs to address the problem of poverty); lack of affordable childcare and health care; age; cultural and language barriers; lack of behavioral changes of people in poverty; limited access to services; and domestic abuse. 33 Although the many and varied solutions for the reduction or elimination of poverty appear endless, costly, and complex, the County employs a variety of strategies to help reduce the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, including efforts to stimulate economic growth and additional job opportunities. An example would be economic development activities that help create additional jobs. Economic development opportunities, such as higher paying jobs, are very important. The City's primary emphasis locally in regard to anti -poverty strategies is to provide adequate housing to low income families and fund a range of support services that will assist them in meeting their basic needs, including food, health care, supportive services and transportation. A number of such support programs are funded through the annual Action Plan, public services process. Other programs are provided locally through other funding mechanisms. One of the largest constraints to an effective anti -poverty plan is lack of funding, especially with the recent elimination of the Redevelopment Agency and in the current economic climate. Many service providers in the City have been forced to cut back programs and housing provision due to funding cuts, which further exacerbates poverty and limits opportunities for self-sufficiency. 64. Identify the extent to which this strategy will reduce (or assist in reducing) the number of poverty level families, taking into consideration factors over which the jurisdiction has control. It is difficult in the current economic climate to reduce poverty; instead, many jurisdictions focus on stabilizing those households most at -risk of poverty and homelessness. Between 2000 and 2010, the poverty rate of Temecula doubled, from 7 percent to 14 percent. The City's goal during the next five years is to prevent future increases in poverty by providing a safety net for those households who have experienced job and economic losses. Institutional Structure 91.215 (k) 65. Provide a concise summary of the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carry out its consolidated plan, including private industry, non-profit organizations, community and faith -based organizations, and public institutions. The City of Temecula will use the following institutional structure to accomplish the goals established in the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan: The City of Temecula Community Development Department serves as the lead agency in coordinating and monitoring the use of federal funds and is responsible for the administration of the CDBG program for the City of Temecula. Multiple staff members manage a wide variety of CDBG activities at the local level. These CDBG activities include: • Economic Development: Oversees job creation, business retention, and business attraction. • Housing: Administers acquisition, affordable housing creation and construction, housing rehabilitation, local service needs, including the provision of social services, shelter and homeless activities. • Planning: Administers the General Plan and zoning regulations that guide development. • Code Enforcement: Provides special code enforcement in revitalization areas 34 • Building: Oversees the permitting process for all ADA infrastructure and improvements, new construction, remodeling, and other required building codes and standards. • Finance: Works closely with Community Development to ensure timely expenditure of funding and accurate accounting of the funds received and expended. Other organizations involved in the delivery of housing, homeless, non -homeless special needs, and community development activities include many of the public agencies and community organizations consulted during the Consolidated Planning process. They include various community organizations whose fields of interest and service include but are not limited to: social services, youth services, elderly services, disability services, HIV/AIDS services, abused children services, health services, homeless services, and domestic violence assistance. Major Non-profit Organizations This section provides a sampling of the non-profit organizations that provide viable and essential services to low income residents. • Youth Services — Assistance League of Temecula Valley — Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest County — CASA for Riverside County • Elderly Services — Temecula Senior Citizens Service Center • Homeless Services — Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission — Project T.O.U.C.H. — Domestic Violence Assistance — Safe Alternatives for Everyone, Inc. (SAFE) • Health Services — Temecula Murrieta Pantry — Medical Resources International Group, Inc. • Community Empowerment — Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) 66. Provide an assessment of the strengths and gaps in the delivery system. The City's institutional structure for carrying out housing and community development activities is efficient. The City works diligently to foster and develop strong relationships with its organizations that provide housing and supportive services to low income and special needs populations. City staff are accessible to its providers of housing and services, and the City works to make the CDBG application processes transparent. Gaps in the system are primarily related to lack of funding for activities, which creates long waiting lists for programs. In recent years, the City has been very proactive in implementing policies and programs that remove barriers and support the provision of needed housing and services, such as streamlining the development process and implementing fee 35 waivers for affordable housing development. These efforts will continue during the next five-year period. 67. Describe efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development of the jurisdiction's economic development strategy. (91.215(1)) The City of Temecula works diligently to foster and develop strong relationships with the private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies. Particularly the City has a strategic partnership with the Economic Development Corporation of Southwest County, the Southwest California Economic Alliance, and the Temecula valley Chamber of Commerce to facilitate our economic development strategy, including business attraction and retention, and expansion of enterprises in the region. The City works to enhance the business climate in community by promoting economic growth and encouraging business expansion and job creation. The City will continue its coordination efforts with all organizations to address the needs of the business community, particularly with regard to economic development, over the next five year period. Coordination 91.215 (1) 68. Describe the efforts to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and governmental health, mental health, and service agencies. In the case of agency coordination, all agencies are working toward one common goal: to provide affordable housing, supportive services, and community development assistance to benefit low and moderate income individuals and families. Local agencies, community-based organizations, and social service providers must coordinate their activities in response to the region's urgent needs in order to meet these common goals. Each stakeholder in the delivery system contributes valuable resources and expertise. The City is currently working to acquire an apartment complex that will be designated for those with developmental disabilities including providing mental health services as well as job training assistance on-site. The City will continue to strive to increase collaborative efforts with public and private sector entities, numerous advisory agencies, and service agencies. 69. Describe efforts in addressing the needs of persons that are chronically homeless with respect to the preparation of the homeless strategy The homeless population refers to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter. This includes persons living in emergency or transitional housing, as well as persons living in cars, parks, abandoned buildings, and other places not meant for permanent habitation. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula's homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. 36 Persons who are homeless and at -risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and housing providers. The City will use CDBG funds for those activities that assist the homeless. The City will continue to strive to increase affordable housing collaborative efforts with public and private sector entities, numerous advisory agencies. 70. Describe the means of cooperation and coordination among the state and any units of general local government in the metropolitan area in the implementation of the plan The City works regularly with the state and local governments and community-based organizations to coordinate their CDBG activities in response to the region's needs. Each stakeholder in the delivery system contributes valuable resources and expertise. 71. Describe efforts to enhance coordination with private industry, businesses, developers, and social service agencies, particularly with regard to the development of the jurisdiction's economic development strategy. Please see response to No. 67. 72. Describe the jurisdiction's efforts to coordinate its housing strategy with local and regional transportation planning strategies to ensure to the extent practicable that residents of affordable housing have access to public transportation. Transit -oriented development (TOD) is increasingly recognized as having the potential to improve the quality of life for American households, by creating vibrant, livable communities in proximity to transit. Improved access to transit can reduce transportation costs for working families and mitigate the negative impacts of automobile travel on the environment and the economy. The need for a mix of housing types that is affordable to a range of family incomes in proximity to transit is an important policy concern for the City of Temecula. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its transportation mobility and connectivity goals. These goals include working with local and regional transportation partners to leverage existing resources for all available transportation modes, and supporting local and regional efforts to enhance transit opportunities, including transit centers and park and ride facilities. The City is currently working on a multi -jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities' concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The plan will help to create live -work communities with better access to public transit. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its public transportation priorities. Monitoring 91.230 73. Describe the standards and procedures the jurisdiction will use to monitor its housing and community development projects and ensure long-term compliance with program requirements and comprehensive planning requirements. Performance of planned projects and activities for these CDBG funds are monitored in various ways depending on type of program and reporting requirements. Monitoring is viewed as a way to identify deficiencies and promote corrections in order to improve performance. The actual activity of monitoring helps promote quality performance, as well as identify any need for further technical assistance. The following is a description of the types of monitoring performed by staff: 37 • Performance monitoring • Financial monitoring • Environmental Review Compliance The Community Development planning staff monitors all activities of the program. The Community Development staff works in cooperation with the Finance Department staff to manage and monitor CDBG funds jointly. Performance Monitoring: Monitoring activities includes spot check monitoring of sub recipients which includes a review of reporting information to ensure compliance with the HUD requirement that beneficiaries be low income. Comprehensive monitoring includes on-site visits, interviews, telephone contacts and reports. Subrecipients Agreements are used to measure compliance by grant recipients. Financial Monitoring: All project costs are paid on a reimbursement basis. A request for reimbursement must have appropriate documentation attached to verify all expenditures. A current report of program activities must also be attached to the draw down request. Expenditures are not paid in advance. The combination of data from the request and the program activities report provides the information necessary to input data into the IDIS system. Collecting this data during the program year is helpful in compiling reports. By requiring documentation in association with reimbursement, the City's Community Development Department staff are able to closely monitor program requirements and ensure that program goals are being met. Reporting/Tracking Systems: Performance is tracked and reported as stated above. Staff reviews the reports, and any discrepancies are addressed with the appropriate entities. Records on performance are kept in the project file. Accuracy of data is confirmed by site visits and monitoring. Environmental Review Compliance: Each project that is budgeted is first reviewed for compliance with the NEPA (National Environmental Protection Agency regulations). CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) regulations may also apply. Projects that are community service in nature are exempt from NEPA. Once the environmental analysis is determined, staff prepares the appropriate paperwork. When environmental clearance has been obtained, the project can move forward to City Council and/or bid, etc. as appropriate. The CDBG Planner monitors all environmental reviews. Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) *Refers to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook. 74. Describe the activities to be undertaken with HOPWA Program funds to address priority unmet housing needs for the eligible population. Activities will assist persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, such as efforts to prevent low income individuals and families from becoming homeless and may address the housing needs of persons who are homeless in order to help homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing and independent living. 75. Identify any obstacles to meeting underserved needs and summarize the priorities and specific objectives, describing how funds made available will be used to address 38 identified needs. 76. The Plan must establish annual HOPWA output goals for the planned number of households to be assisted during the year in: (1) short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as community residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop and/or operate these facilities. The plan can also describe the special features or needs being addressed, such as support for persons who are homeless or chronically homeless. These outputs are to be used in connection with an assessment of client outcomes for achieving housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care. 77. For housing facility projects being developed, a target date for the completion of each development activity must be included and information on the continued use of these units for the eligible population based on their stewardship requirements (e.g. within the ten-year use periods for projects involving acquisition, new construction or substantial rehabilitation). 78. Provide an explanation of how the funds will be allocated including a description of the geographic area in which assistance will be directed and the rationale for these geographic allocations and priorities. Include the name of each project sponsor, the zip code for the primary area(s) of planned activities, amounts committed to that sponsor, and whether the sponsor is a faith -based and/or grassroots organization. 79. Describe the role of the lead jurisdiction in the eligible metropolitan statistical area (EMSA), involving (a) consultation to develop a metropolitan -wide strategy for addressing the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS and their families living throughout the EMSA with the other jurisdictions within the EMSA; (b) the standards and procedures to be used to monitor HOPWA Program activities in order to ensure compliance by project sponsors of the requirements of the program. N/A Specific HOPWA Objectives 80. Identify specific objectives that the jurisdiction intends to initiate and/or complete in accordance with the tables* prescribed by HUD. Complete and submit Table 1C Summary of Specific Objectives or, if using the CPMP Tool, the Summaries.xls worksheets. 81. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the period covered by the strategic plan. N/A 82. Include any Strategic Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section. If optional tables are not used, provide comparable information that is required by consolidated plan regulations. 83. Section 108 Loan Guarantee 39 If the jurisdiction has an open Section 108 project, provide a summary of the project. The summary should include the Project Name, a short description of the project and the current status of the project, the amount of the Section 108 loan, whether you have an EDI or BEDI grant and the amount of this grant, the total amount of CDBG assistance provided for the project, the national objective(s) codes for the project, the Matrix Codes, if the activity is complete, if the national objective has been met, the most current number of beneficiaries (jobs created/retained, number of FTE jobs held by/made available to LMI persons, number of housing units assisted, number of units occupied by LMI households, etc.) The City of Temecula does not have any open Section 108 projects. However, the City would like to utilize Section 108 loans in the future when eligible. 84. Regional Connections Describe how the jurisdiction's strategic plan connects its actions to the larger strategies for the metropolitan region. Does the plan reference the plans of other agencies that have responsibilities for metropolitan transportation, economic development, and workforce investment? The City of Temecula regularly works with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) regarding metropolitan -wide planning issues, such as the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The actions set forth in the strategic plan are directly related to achieving larger metropolitan strategies such as regional transportation and economic development. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its community development goals. These goals include working with regional partners to leverage existing resources for all available support efforts to enhance opportunities for low and mod income families, including housing choices, job opportunities, adequate infrastructure, and access to social services. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its community development priorities. 40 SECTION IV. Year One Action Plan ?i1hIh1i ■ * Gxi Annual Action Plan so 111111 ��z egM oEv�`e The CPMP Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and Narrative Responses to Action Plan questions that CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG grantees must respond to each year in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning Regulations. Narrative Responses Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and is due every year no less than 45 days prior to the start of the grantee's program year start date. HUD does not accept plans between August 15 and November 15. Executive Summary 91.220(b) 1. The Executive Summary is required. Include the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan and an evaluation of past performance. Introduction As an Entitlement Community receiving annual funding allocations from the Federal Government to fund local housing and community development needs, the City of Temecula is required to develop a Consolidated Plan once every five years. The Consolidated Plan serves as a comprehensive guide on how the City intends to utilize the allotted federal funds to address national objectives in a manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the local community. For each succeeding year, the City is required to prepare a one year Action Plan to notify citizens and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of the City's intended actions during that particular fiscal year. The annual Action Plan includes citizen and stakeholder input and due to HUD field office in Los Angeles 45 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The City of Temecula has prepared this draft First -Year Action Plan covering the time period from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013. At the end of each fiscal year, the City must also prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to provide information to HUD and Temecula citizens about the year's accomplishments. Beginning in 2012, the City of Temecula anticipates receiving approximately $475,000 annually through the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to fund housing, community development and social service activities. The 2012 program year will be the first time Temecula has received CDBG directly, as an entitlement community. During 2012, the City will also receive an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA) 1 Resident and Stakeholder Priority Needs During the 2012 Action Plan, Temecula plans to allocate its CDBG funds to address worst case needs, including: • Development of supportive/transitional housing in Temecula, • Rehabilitation of a community center located in a low income area, • Food, clothing, school supplies, emergency assistance and counseling services to low income children, at -risk families and homeless residents, • Services for at -risk youth and families who are victims of domestic violence and abuse, • Child care and afterschool care for low income children, This plan for allocating funds is consistent with the top priorities identified by residents and stakeholders who participated in development of the Consolidated Plan. Specifically: Residents responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, health care facilities, and street/alley improvements as top community needs. During PY2012, the City intends to fund health care services for low income, un- and underinsured women, construct sidewalks, and remove boardwalk plan boards in Old Town. Therefore, the City will directly fund two of the three top priorities identified in the resident survey. Job creation activities will be conducted by the City in partnership with the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. A goal of the City's Economic Development Element is to encourage job creation and economic development through revitalization activities. Stakeholders responding to the survey prioritized job creation/retention, homeless shelters/services and affordable rental housing as top community needs. The City plans to fund the development of a transitional/supportive housing facility. . In addition, public services dollars will be used to provide services and emergency assistance to residents who are homeless and at -risk of homelessness. Public meeting attendees prioritized improving bike path linkages, supportive services to single mothers and upgrading the Boys & Girls Club facility as top needs. As described above, the City has prioritized supportive services and improvement to youth facilities (playgrounds, community center). 2 2012-2013 Objectives and Outcomes The major objectives and expected outcomes for 2012-2013 Action Plan are: Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL -1, SL -3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO -1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Year One Outcomes DH -1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide $150,000 CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing SL -3. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability). Provide $1.2 million of CDBG to renovate Temecula Community Center. Provide $50,000 of CDBG to design and construct a new play structure at Sam Hicks Monument Park, located in a low income neighborhood. Provide CDBG to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk youth and families of domestic violence SL -2. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability). Provide clothing and school supplies to children in low income families. 3 EO -1. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) A business technology incubator program will be designed to assist and accelerate the successful development of entrepreneurial companies, thus creating additional jobs, product, and innovation to Temecula and the region. Citizen Participation 91.220(b) 2. Provide a summary of the citizen participation and consultation process (including efforts to broaden public participation in the development of the plan. Temecula's Consolidated Plan and Year One Action Plan were developed with a strong emphasis on community input. To broaden participation in the Plan, the City provided a number of opportunities for public input including surveys, public meetings and focus groups and the 30 -day draft public comment period. Specifically, • The City of Temecula held two community workshop meetings on November 16, 2011, to collect citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula. Notices for the community workshop meetings and surveys were publicized on the City's website, Facebook page, mailed to the Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) mailing list, published in the local newspaper, and emailed to many local business and affordable housing professionals. • On November 17, 2011, the City of Temecula held a technical assistance meeting to provide assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. • Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011, through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. These efforts resulted in participation by 176 residents and 30 stakeholders in the development of the Consolidated Plan. Stakeholders represent a broad spectrum of interests. The industries and professions represented included: • Affordable housing provision; • Child protective services; • Fair housing; • Foreclosure/loss mitigation prevention; • Higher education; • Homeless services; • Landlord/tenant services; • Lending; • Manufacturing; • ■ ■ • • ■ • • • 4 Neighborhood stabilization; Rental property owners and managers; Residential development; Sales; Senior services; Services for low income residents; Services for single mothers; Social services; and Youth development. Participating stakeholders serve a variety of populations in Temecula, including; • Elderly; • Families on CalWorks cash assistance; • Immigrants; • Low income individuals; • Persons with a developmental disability; • Persons and families who are homeless; • Persons with HIV/AIDS; • Persons with a mental illness; • Persons with a physical disability; • Persons with substance abuse/addiction; • Victims of domestic violence; • Single mothers; and • Youth. 3. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan. Comments will be added here once they are received during the draft comment period. 4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why these comments were not accepted. The City accepted all comments during the citizen participation process. Resources 91.220(c)(1) and (c)(2) 5. Identify the federal, state, and local resources (including program income) the jurisdiction expects to receive to address the needs identified in the plan. Federal resources should include Section 8 funds made available to the jurisdiction, Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and competitive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds expected to be available to address priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan. The following resources are available to the City of Temecula and will be used to carry out the 2012-2016 Strategic Plan and the 2012 Action Plan of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan. FEDERAL PROGRAMS: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Urban communities may use funds to address neighborhood revitalization, economic development, provisions of improved community facilities, prevention and elimination of slums or blight, and activities aiding low and moderate income families. For the 2012 Action Plan, the City will be receiving $475,558 of CDBG Entitlement funds, and an anticipated $1,200,000 of previously programmed CDBG income allocated to the City and administered by the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA). These funds have been allocated as indicated in the listing of Proposed Projects to address the priority needs identified in the 2012 - 2016 Strategic Plan. There is no match required for these funds. This will give the City's 2012 CDBG Program a full funding amount of $1,675,558. 5 6. Explain how federal funds will leverage resources from private and non-federal public sources. The service funds leverage private donations and local support from United Way and other organizations for the operating funds for non-profit organizations. Annual Objectives 91.220(c)(3) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 3A. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Summary of Specific Annual Objectives Worksheets or Summaries.xls Goals and objectives to be carried out during the action plan period are indicated by placing a check in the following boxes. 6 Objective Category: Decent Housing Which includes: Objective Categor Expanded Economi Opportunities Which includes: • Objective Category: Expanded Economic Opportunities Which includes: assisting homeless persons obtain affordable housing improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods job creation and retention I assisting persons at risk of becoming homeless eliminating blighting influences and the deterioration of property and facilities establishment, stabilization and expansion of small business (including micro - businesses) ►I 7 retaining the affordable housing stock — increasing the access to quality public and private facilities the provision of public services concerned with employment increasing the availability of affordable permanent housing in standard condition to low income and moderate income families, particularly to members of disadvantaged minorities without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability reducing the isolation of income groups within areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons and the revitalization of deteriorating neighborhoods the provision of jobs to low income persons living in areas affected by those programs and activities under programs covered by the plan Z increasing the supply of supportive housing which includes structural features and services to enable persons with special needs (including persons with HIV/ADDS) to live in dignity and independence fl restoring and preserving properties of special historic, architectural, or aesthetic value availability of mortgage financing for low income persons at reasonable rates using non- discriminatory lending practices providing affordable housing that is accessible to job opportunities conserving energy resources and use of renewable energy sources access to capital and credit for development activities that promote the long-term economic social viability of the community 6 7. Provide a summary of specific objectives that will be addressed during the program year. Objectives Decent Housing (Availability/Accessibility) DH -1. Promote, preserve, and assist in the development of affordable housing for low and moderate income residents, special needs groups, those at -risk of homelessness, and disproportionately impacted residents. Suitable Living Environment (Sustainability) SL -3. Improve and expand infrastructure and facilities that benefit low and moderate income neighborhoods and residents. Suitable Living Environment (Affordability, Sustainability) SL -1, SL -3. Provide and improve access to public services for low and moderate income persons and those with special needs. Economic Opportunity (Availability/Accessibility) EO -1. Provide for the economic development needs of low and moderate income persons and neighborhood target areas. Administrative. Provide for administration and planning activities to develop housing and community development strategies to carry out actions that address identified needs in the Consolidated Plan. Description of Activities 91.220(d) and (e) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 3C *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Projects Worksheets and the Summaries Table. 8. Provide a summary of the eligible programs or activities that will take place during the program year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in the strategic plan. Describe the outcome measures for activities in accordance with Federal Register Notice dated March 7, 2006, i.e., general objective category (decent housing, suitable living environment, economic opportunity) and general outcome category (availability/accessibility, affordability, sustainability). Overall priority. The overall priority for the Action Plan is to use these Federal funds to increase self-sufficiency and economic opportunity for lower income residents and individuals with special needs so that they can achieve a reasonable standard of living. The national objectives and performance outcome measurement system established by HUD are the basis for assigning priorities to needs for which funding may be allocated. National objectives. In order for an activity or project to be eligible for funding, it must qualify as meeting one of the three national objectives of the program: 1. Principally benefit (at least 51%) low and moderate income persons; 2. Aid in the prevention of slums or blight; or 3. Meet community development needs having a particular urgency. 7 The objective and outcome that will be achieved is included in each of the planned activities and is identified using a numbering system that ties to the Community Planning and Development Performance Measurement System developed by HUD. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities. Based upon this intent, it must be determined which of the following three objectives best describe the purpose of an activity: • Provide decent housing (DH); • Provide a suitable living environment (SL); and/or • Expand economic opportunities, principally for lower income persons (EO). Each activity must also meet specific performance outcomes that are related to at least one of the following: • Availability/Accessibility (1); • Affordability (2); or • Sustainability - Promoting Livable or Viable Communities (3) In addition to national objectives and performance measurements, the City must weigh and balance the input from different groups and assign funding priorities that best bridge the gaps in the City's service delivery system. The City received input through outreach efforts helping to prioritize funding for community facilities, community services, homeless facilities and services, housing, economic development, and public improvements. Projects are reviewed and funding allocations are made based upon the above criteria, including the projects' ability to reach and serve the areas and persons with the greatest need. Application Process. The City's annual CDBG funding cycle starts in the early fall. A general funding availability notice is published citywide. An online application notice is sent to all current recipients, previous applicants, and any and all organizations submitting a request. The online application provides applicants with application due dates, anticipated funding amounts, application submittal procedures, and any programmatic changes. Upon receipt, an application is reviewed and thoroughly evaluated for completeness, eligibility, national objective, and the projects ability to reach and serve the areas and persons with the greatest need. Other criteria include project readiness, innovation, leveraging, and cost -benefit analysis. The City is committed to allocating funds that serve the needs of the lowest income and most disadvantaged residents. Households with less than fifty - percent (50%) percent of the area median income, particularly those with extremely low incomes (less than thirty -percent (30%) percent of area median income), are priorities. The City has established priorities for allocating funds based on a number of criteria, including: the established need; urgency of the need; cost efficiency; eligibility of activities/programs; funding program limitations; capacity and authority for implementing actions; consistency with City goals, policies, and efforts; identified gaps in service; availability of other funding sources to address specific needs; comments and correspondence from interested agencies and organizations; and feedback from the general public. 8 Based on a comprehensive needs assessment, priority ranking was assigned to each category of housing and community development needs according to the following HUD criteria: High Priority: Activities to address this need are expected to be funded with CDBG funds during the five-year period. Medium Priority: If CDBG funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded during the five-year period. Low Priority: The City will not directly fund activities using CDBG funds to address this need during the next five -years. No Such Need: The City finds there is no such need for activities or the need is already substantially addressed. The proposed One -Year Action Plan is then prepared. The applications and funding recommendations are submitted to the Finance Committee for consideration. Upon final funding allocations, a 30 -day public comment period and a 14 -day noticed public hearing are scheduled. The final One Year Action Plan is presented to the Temecula City Council for approval. The One -Year Action Plan is then submitted to HUD at least 45 days prior to the start of the program year. Consolidated Plan Listing of Projects: 1. Project: Priority Need: Sponsor: Address: Project Description: Location: Census Tract: Objective: Outcome: HUD Matrix Code: CDBG National Objective: CDBG Accomplishment Type: Type of Recipient: Funding Source: Transitional/Supportive Housing Public Facilities - High City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 The project includes the acquisition of a facility to provide supportive housing for 15-20 families and identify a non-profit operator to operate the facility and provide supportive services. Rental housing would be provided at this facility, targeting families within the extremely low income category. Temecula, CA Decent Housing (DH) Availability/Accessibility (1) 03C LMC 11 Public Agency CDBG $150,000 2. Project: Priority Need: Sponsor: Address: Temecula Community Center Rehabilitation Public Facilities - High City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 9 Project Description: The project includes a complete building renovation including new parking lot lights, trash enclosure, re -roof, exterior and interior paint, lobby area expansion and new furniture, new restroom fixtures, floors, and partition walls, new flooring and cabinets throughout, replace kitchen equipment, new doors, windows, and hardware, and install energy efficient HVAC system. CDBG funds will be used for design and construction costs. Location: 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Sustainability (3) HUD Matrix Code: 03F CDBG National Objective: LMA CDBG Accomplishment Type: 11 Type of Recipient: Public Agency Funding Source: CDBG $1,200,000 3. Project: Sam Hicks Monument Park Playground Replacement Priority Need: Public Facilities - High Sponsor: City of Temecula Address: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589 Project Description: Design and construct a new play structure to replace the existing equipment including removal of old equipment and installation of new equipment, and resurfacing according to ADA Guidelines. CDBG funds will be used for design and construction costs. Location: 41970 Moreno Road, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Sustainability (3) HUD Matrix Code: 03F CDBG National Objective: LMA CDBG Accomplishment Type: 11 Type of Recipient: Public Agency Funding Source: CDBG $50,000 4. Project: Operation School Bell Priority Need: Public Services - High Sponsor: Assistance League of Temecula Valley Address: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides clothes and school supplies to children from low income families. CDBG funds will provide clothing for children. Location: 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Affordability (2) HUD Matrix Code: 05 10 CDBG National Objective: CDBG Accomplishment Type: Type of Recipient: Funding Source: LMC 01 Sub recipient CDBG $11,400 5. Project: Priority Need: Sponsor: Address: Project Description: Location: Census Tract: Objective: Outcome: HUD Matrix Code: CDBG National Objective: CDBG Accomplishment Type: Type of Recipient: Funding Source: Domestic Violence Services Program Public Services - High Safe Alternatives for Everyone (S.A.F.E.) 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 The program provides a provision of services to at -risk youth and families to avoid violence and abuse. CDBG funds will be used for staff salaries and benefits. 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 432.15 Suitable Living Environment (SL) Availability/Accessibility (1) 05G LMC 01 Sub recipient CDBG $11,400 6. Project: Priority Need: Sponsor: Address: Project Description: Location: Census Tract: Objective: Outcome: HUD Matrix Code: CDBG National Objective: CDBG Accomplishment Type: Type of Recipient: Funding Source: Before and After School Care for Kids Public Services - High Boys & Girls Clubs of Southwest County 28790 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 The program provides before and after school care for underserved low income youth. CDBG funds will be used for program "scholarships" to reduce child care costs for families. 28790 Pujol Street & 31465 Via Cordoba, Temecula, CA 92590 432.15 Suitable Living Environment (SL) Affordability (2) 05D LMC 01 Sub recipient CDBG $11,400 7. Project: Priority Need: Sponsor: Address: Project Description: Emergency Food/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Public Services - High Senior Citizens Service Center 41538 Eastman Drive, Unit B & C, Murrieta, CA 92562 The program provides food and supplies to low income families. CDBG funds will be used for food and other operation costs. Location: 41538 Eastman Drive, Unit B & C, Murrieta, CA 92562 11 Census Tract: Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 05 CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 8. Project: Expanded SMURF Childcare Program Priority Need: Public Services - High Sponsor: Single Mothers United in Rewarding Fellowship (SMURF) Address: 41919 Moreno Dr. Suite D, Temecula, CA 92590 Project Description: The program provides expanded childcare developmental curriculum for underserved low income youth while mothers attend fellowship program. CDBG funds will be used for educational and developmental supplies, and staff salaries. Location: 41919 Moreno Dr. Suite D, Temecula, CA 92590 Census Tract: 432.15 Objective: Suitable Living Environment (SL) Outcome: Availability/Accessibility (1) HUD Matrix Code: 05 CDBG National Objective: LMC CDBG Accomplishment Type: 01 Type of Recipient: Sub recipient Funding Source: CDBG $11,400 Geographic Distribution/Allocation Priorities 91.220(d) and (f) 9. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low income families and/or racial/minority concentration) in which assistance will be directed during the next year. Where appropriate, the jurisdiction should estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target areas. The City of Temecula will direct assistance to low to moderate income Census Tracts in the Cit. These are located directly west of I-15 and in the central city. In addition to directing assistance to low to moderate income areas, the City will provide direct assistance to limited clientele populations. 10. Describe the reasons for the allocation priorities, the rationale for allocating investments geographically within the jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) during the next year, and identify any obstacles to addressing underserved needs. Geographic Allocation. The City's primary method of allocating CDBG dollars is to assist low to moderate income and special needs populations. To the extent that specific geographic areas have greater needs than other areas in the City and /or if service and housing organizations are located in certain areas, they will receive a larger proportionate share of the funding. 12 For sidewalk improvements, the City will focus on the geographic areas where sidewalks, curb cuts and related ADA accommodations are lacking. Finally, to provide affordable rental and single family housing, the City's dollars will be allocated in areas of new development where affordable housing is lacking and /or infill areas that can accommodate affordable housing. Actions to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs. As mentioned in the Strategic Plan, the greatest obstacle to meeting underserved needs is lack of funding. The City has many needs that exceed available funding, including street/sidewalk repair, housing and services to special needs populations, comprehensive housing and services to assist persons who are chronically homeless move into supportive housing environments and provision of affordable housing. Both private foundations and public agencies have been have been impacted by the recent economic downturn. As noted previously, the amount of resources available to address social, community, and economic development goals pale in comparison to the recognized needs. To address this obstacle, the City strongly encourages its sub - recipients to seek other resources, forge new partnerships, and to leverage additional funding whenever possible from local, State, Federal, and private sources. The City urges CDBG funded programs and services to be flexible, while at the same time to be as efficient and effective as possible to achieve expected performance outcomes. Annual Affordable Housing Goals 91.220(9) *If not using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit Table 38 Annual Housing Completion Goals. *If using the CPMP Tool: Complete and submit the Table 3B Annual Housing Completion Goals. 11. Describe the one-year goals for the number of homeless, non -homeless, and special -needs households to be provided affordable housing using funds made available to the jurisdiction and one-year goals for the number of households to be provided affordable housing through activities that provide rental assistance, production of new units, rehabilitation of existing units, or acquisition of existing units using funds made available to the jurisdiction. The term affordable housing shall be defined in 24 CFR 92.252 for rental housing and 24 CFR 92.254 for homeownership. During the 2012-2013 program year, the City will accomplish the following affordable housing goals: DH -1. Decent Housing (Availability and Accessibility). Provide $150,000 CDBG funding to support development of supportive/transitional housing As stated above, there are limited opportunities and funding available to provide affordable housing opportunities. They City will attempt to seek new partnerships in the upcoming year. During FY 2012-2013 the City will continue to address affordable housing needs through the following programs: 13 Section 8 Rental Assistance: The City will continue to provide Section 8 rental assistance to extremely low and low income households through the Riverside County Housing Authority Voucher Program. Approximately 136 low income renter -households will be assisted in the City. Mortgage Credit Certificates: The City participates with the County of Riverside in its Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program as a means of providing financial assistance for the purchase of single-family housing. A mortgage credit certificate is a certificate authorizing first-time home buyers to take a federal income tax credit of up to 15 percent of the annual interest paid on the mortgage. The program targets low and moderate income households. Public Housing 91.220(h) 12. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the needs of public housing and activities it will undertake during the next year to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and participate in homeownership. The City does not have public housing; and therefore does not undertake activities to increase resident initiatives; however, the City will continue to support the Section 8 rental assistance voucher program for low income households administered through the Riverside County Housing Authority. 13. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such designation during the next year. N/A Homeless and Special Needs 91.220(i) 14. Describe, briefly, the jurisdiction's plan for the investment and use of available resources and describe the specific planned action steps it will take over the next year aimed at eliminating chronic homelessness. 15. Describe specific action steps to address the needs of persons that are not homeless identified in accordance with 91.215(e). 16. Homelessness Prevention—Describe planned action steps over the next year to address the individual and families with children at imminent risk of becoming homeless. The City has adopted a program to find housing for Temecula's homeless population and will continue to build new, and expand existing partnerships among private and public sector organizations to ensure a comprehensive social services infrastructure that provides services to all ages and addresses gaps in services. This includes a network of public and private organizations to address homelessness, and a broad structure of social support for special needs populations. 14 Persons who are homeless and at -risk of homelessness in Temecula will be assisted by the City through the provision of block grant funds to homeless services and other social service providers. CDBG funds will be provided to assist with the operations of the following social service agencies who work with low income and special needs residents, many of whom are also at risk of homelessness: • Domestic violence services • Food pantry • Child and before and after school care • Advocacy and supportive services for at -risk domestic violence • Provide clothing and school supplies to children youth and families of in low income families Barriers to Affordable Housing 91.220(j) 17. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to remove barriers to affordable housing. Barriers to affordable housing are frequently caused when the incentive to develop such housing is removed due to excessive development costs, governmental regulation, and community opposition. Some development costs are driven by economic conditions and other factors that affect the real estate market. These are often beyond the control of local government policies. In the City of Temecula, the primary barriers to affordable housing are not created through local policies. Recently, the largest barrier to affordable housing is the elimination of the City's Redevelopment Agency through State legislative action. Historically, the Redevelopment Housing set-aside fund has provided all of the funding for affordable housing development. The City has made a concerted effort to streamline the development process, and offers fee waivers for some development fees. The City completed an update to the Housing Element in 2008 that examined barriers to housing development. The Housing Element Update 2008-2014 did not reveal any significant barriers to affordable housing, although it does contain goals and policies to facilitate affordable housing development. The City uses a multi -faceted strategy to address barriers to affordable housing. A major focus involves the use of both financial and processing assistance to maximize as many housing units as possible. This approach allows the City to quantify affordable housing production and make adjustments to development strategies as necessary. Development fees and approval delays add to the cost of development. In addition, inflation can increase the cost of both materials and labor. These factors combined with negative public perceptions serve as a major disincentive to the construction of affordable housing and are seen as obstacles by qualified developers. The City will implement the following policies as mitigation for potentially foreseen barriers to affordable housing: • Project Manager: The designation of a staff liaison to work specifically with affordable housing developers and their representatives. 15 • Fee Subsidies: Under certain circumstances, the City will subsidize the payment of development fees. • Public Outreach: The City will continue to educate the public about the social and economic benefits of affordable housing. • Fast Track and Priority Processing: Expedite the construction of affordable housing projects through all phases of the approval process. The AI conducted as part of the 2012-2016 Consolidated Plan found no barriers to affordable housing development related to City actions. The AI did identify two minor, potential barriers in the City's zoning regulations (lack of definition of "family" and disallowance of congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants not specifically for the elderly in residential zones). Other Actions 91.220(k) 18. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs, foster and maintain affordable housing, evaluate and reduce the number of housing units containing lead-based paint hazards, reduce the number of poverty -level families develop institutional structure, enhance coordination between public and private agencies (see 91.215(a), (b), (i), (j), (k), and (I)). 19. Describe the actions to coordinate its housing strategy with local and regional transportation planning strategies to ensure to the extent practicable that residents of affordable housing have access to public transportation. Transit -oriented development (TOD) is increasingly recognized as having the potential to improve the quality of life for American households, by creating vibrant, livable communities in proximity to transit. Improved access to transit can reduce transportation costs for working families and mitigate the negative impacts of automobile travel on the environment and the economy. The need for a mix of housing types that is affordable to a range of family incomes in proximity to transit is an important policy concern for the City of Temecula. The City has clearly identified several key priorities to achieve its transportation mobility and connectivity goals. These goals include working with local and regional transportation partners to leverage existing resources for all available transportation modes, and supporting local and regional efforts to enhance transit opportunities, including transit centers and park and ride facilities. The City is currently working on a multi -jurisdictional plan to establish livable communities' concepts, and a sustainable transportation system that addresses mobility, access, and safety. The plan will help to create live -work communities with better access to public transit. The City is committed to effective collaboration with many partners in order to achieve its public transportation priorities. 16 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REIUIREME EIMMI CDBG 91.220(1)(1) 1. Identify program income expected to be received during the program year, including: • amount expected to be generated by and deposited to revolving loan funds; • total amount expected to be received from each new float -funded activity included in this plan; and • amount expected to be received during the current program year from a float -funded activity described in a prior statement or plan. N/A, the City does not have any revolving or float -funded activities and does not plan to use them during the Con Plan period. 2. Program income received in the preceding program year that has not been included in a statement or plan. None, the Plan includes the $1,200,000 of program income received in the preceding program year. 3. Proceeds from Section 108 loan guarantees that will be used during the year to address the priority needs and specific objectives identified in its strategic plan. None. 4. Surplus funds from any urban renewal settlement for community development and housing activities. None. 5. Any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan. None. 6. Income from float -funded activities. None. 7. Urgent need activities, only if the jurisdiction certifies. None; however, should an urgent need arise the City will process the necessary Action Plan amendments to address such need. 8. Estimated amount of CDBG funds that will be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income. 90-100% Changing conditions provision. As market changes occur within Temecula, the City will rededicate funding sources to address the needs in other areas. • Priority changes in public facilities and infrastructure needs will be rededicated to public projects identified to meet the City's five year high priority objectives. 17 • Funding changes or elimination of Public Service activities will be rededicated to other, eligible Public Service activities and providers that submitted eligible applications and programs within the previous (most current) year's application cycle. • Completion of one project, with additional funding, primarily for public facilities and/or infrastructure, will be rededicated to another public facilities or infrastructure project. HOME 91.220(I)(1) N/A; the City of Temecula does not receive HOME funds. 1. Describe other forms of investment. (See Section 92.205) If grantee (P1) plans to use HOME funds for homebuyers, did they state the guidelines of resale or recapture, as required in 92.254. 2. If grantee (P1) plans to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is being rehabilitated with HOME funds, state its refinancing guidelines required under 24 CFR 92.206(b). 3. Resale Provisions — For homeownership activities, describe its resale or recapture guidelines that ensure the affordability of units acquired with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4). 4. HOME Tenant -Based Rental Assistance — Describe the local market conditions that led to the use of a HOME funds for tenant based rental assistance program. If the tenant based rental assistance prog ram is targeted to or provides a preference for a special needs group, that group must be identified in the Consolidated Plan as having an unmet need and show the preference is needed to narrow the gap in benefits and services received by this population. 5. If a participating jurisdiction intends to use forms of investment other than those described in 24 CFR 92.205(b), describe these forms of investment. 6. Describe the policy and procedures it will follow to affirmatively market housing containing five or more HOME -assisted units. 7. Describe actions taken to establish and oversee a minority outreach program within its jurisdiction to ensure inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minority and women, and entities owned by minorities and women, including without limitation, real estate firms, construction firms, appraisal firms, management firms, financial institutions, investment banking firms, underwriters, accountants, and providers of legal services, in all contracts, entered into by the participating jurisdiction with such persons or entities, public and private, in order to facilitate the activities of the participating jurisdiction to provide affordable housing under the HOME program or any other Federal housing law applicable to such jurisdiction. 8. If a jurisdiction intends to use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is rehabilitated with HOME funds, state its financing guidelines required under 24 CFR 92.206(b). 18 HOPWA 91.220(I)(3) 1. One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA activities for: short-term rent, mortgage, and utility assistance to prevent homelessness of the individual or family, tenant -based rental assistance, units provided in housing facilities that are being developed, leased, or operated. N/A; the City does not receive HOPWA. Include any action plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other section. If optional tables are not used, provide comparable information that is required by consolidated plan regulations. 19 SECTION V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice SECTION V. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice This appendix contains the City of Temecula's Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). This AI was completed as part of the city's 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan. This section contains: • Maps examining racial, ethnic and income concentrations in Temecula; • The findings from a fair housing survey that was conducted for this analysis; • A review of the city's land use policies and zoning codes for barriers to fair housing choice; • An analysis of home mortgage lending data; • An analysis of fair housing complaints and legal cases; and • An identification of fair housing barriers and recommended fair housing action plan. Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The AI is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the public and private sector. The AI is required for the City of Temecula to receive federal housing and community development block grant funding.' The AI involves: • A review of a city's laws, regulations and administrative policies, procedures and practices; • An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and accessibility of housing; and • An assessment of public and private sector conditions affecting fair housing choice. According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice are: • Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because ofrace, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices. • Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis ofrace, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin. 1 The city is also required to submit a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and an annual performance report to receive funding each year. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1 Although the AI itself is not directly approved or denied by HUD, its submission is a required component of a city's or state's Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development (Consolidated Plan) performance reporting. HUD desires that AI's: • Serve as the substantive, logical basis for fair housing planning; • Provide essential and detailed information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing providers, lenders and fair housing advocates; and • Assist in building public support for fair housing efforts both within a city's boundaries and beyond. Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex, familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending and land use and zoning. Excluded from the Act are owner -occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members and housing for older persons.2 HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates the complaints it receives and determines if there is a "reasonable cause" to believe that discrimination occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff).3 State of California Fair Housing Laws. In addition to the Federal Fair Housing Act, there are several California state laws that apply to Fair Housing. Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959. This act requires equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services of all business establishments. It provides for the right to be free from discrimination in public accommodations regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin. It was later amended to include all disabilities.4 Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1963. This is the primary state law which prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, lease negotiation or financing of housing based on race, color national origin, sex, marital status, national origin and ancestry.5 Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976: This act provides that all persons within California have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, age, disability or position in a labor dispute. The Act prohibits violence or threat of 2 3 4 "How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation's Fair Housing Laws", The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002. Ibid. The Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Available online at http://www.fairhousing.net/index.php?option=com content&view=artide&id=76&Itemid=68 5 I bid. PAGE 2, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING same in rental housing situations, including houses, apartments, hotel, boarding housing and condominiums.6 California Fair Housing Act of 1992: This act brings the Fair Housing Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) into conformity with the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Added to current protected groups are "mental and physical disability" and "familial status." It requires that housing providers allow disabled persons to modify their premises and make reasonable accommodations to meet their needs, increases the time limit for the filing of discrimination complaints from 60 days to one year, provides minimum accessibility standards for all newly - constructed multifamily housing, bars mobile home parks from "adults only" residency unless they comply with criteria for the senior housing exemption as defined under Housing for Older Persons, and it provides representation of the victim by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing if the issue is removed to a court of law from the administrative process after determination that the law has been violated.' Protected Class Concentrations A full demographic profile of Temecula is provided in Section I of the Consolidated Plan. This section of the AI focuses on concentrations of protected classes in Temecula. Racial concentrations. In 2010, the largest racial group in Temecula was white (71%), followed by Asian (at a much lower 10%). The slight majority of Temecula residents (57%) were non - Hispanic white and approximately one-quarter were of Hispanic origin. Figure V-1 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of Temecula in 2000 and 2010. Figure V-1. Population by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census and 2010 Census. 2000 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Total population -40 57,716 100 100,097 100 Race American Indian and Alaska Native Asian 2,728 4.7% 9,765 9.8% Black or African American . Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 174 0.3% 368 0.4% White 45,555 78.9% 70,880 70.8% Some Other Race 4,276 7.4% 7,928 7.9% 2,512 4.4% 5,945 5.9% Eth nicity Hispanic or Lati 10,1111. 19.0% 24,727 24.7% Non -Hispanic White 40,007 69.3% 57,246 57.2% The population proportion of all minority groups increased in between 2000 and 2010, while the non -Hispanic white population proportion dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent. Despite this increase in diversity, Temecula still has a smaller minority population than Riverside County as a 6 Ibid. ' Ibid. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 3 whole. In Riverside County, the Hispanic population (45%) outnumbers the non -Hispanic white population (40%). One of the key components of a demographic analysis is an examination of the concentration of racial and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority concentrations are a reflection of preferences- e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater to them. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities. According to HUD, an area of racial and ethnic concentration (also called a "minority impacted area") is defined as where the percentage of persons in a particular race or ethnic group is at least 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category for the city as a whole. Using the above definition of concentration, block groups in Temecula have a concentration if the following exists: • A non -Hispanic white population proportion of 77 percent and more; • A Hispanic population proportion of 45 percent and more; • An Asian population proportion of 30 percent and more; and • A Black or African American population proportion of 24 percent and more. Figure V-2 shows the percentage of non -Hispanic white residents within each block group in the city. There are no block groups within city boundaries that are 77 percent or more non -Hispanic white; however one block group immediately east of Temecula is non -Hispanic white -concentrated. Figure V-2. Percent of Non -Hispanic White Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend rzi City of Temecula Less than 5009E _ 50.0% to 77.0% More than )]0% r PAGE 4, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure V-3 shows the ratio of Hispanics to total population by block group in the city. As the map demonstrates, there no block groups in the city with Hispanic concentrations. Figure V-3. Percent of Hispanic/Latino Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend City of Temecula Lessthan 20.0% Morethan 45.0% Figure V-4 shows the proportion of Asian residents by block group in the city. There is one block group in the southwestern portion of the city with a concentration of Asian residents. Figure V-4. Percent of Asian Population by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend Cty of Temecula Less than 15.096 _ 15.0% to 30.0% Greater than 30. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 5 Under 5 years 5 to 17 years 18 to 34 years 35 to 64 years 161 1,609 1,089 3,745 2% 7% 5% 10% 2% 17% 12% 40% Percent Percent of Age with Estimate Group Disabilities 65 to 74 years 1,256 36% 13% 75 years and over 1,514 47% 16% Total 9,374 9% 100% Figure V-5 shows the proportion of African Americans by block group in the city. There are no block groups with concentrations of African Americans. Figure V-5. Percent of Population that is African American, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend ® City of Temecula Less than 12.0% 12.0% to 24.0% More than 24.0% Persons with disabilities. The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Temecula residents had a disability. By 2010, the percent of residents with a disability had dropped to 10 percent. The prevalence of disability decreased in each age cohort between 2000 and 2010 most dramatically in residents aged 18-34 (12% in 2000 to 5% in 2010). Figure V-6. Disability by Age Cohort, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 American Community Survey. The likelihood of disability increases with age and thus the distribution of disabilities is typically a function of a city's age profile. Of the 9,374 persons with disabilities in Temecula, 30 percent were seniors, up from 26 percent in 2000. Figure V-7 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities in Temecula by block group as of 2000, the latest date of availability. A block group is concentrated when 33 percent of residents in a block group have a disability (based on the 2000 Census disability proportion for the city). There are no block groups with concentrations of persons with disabilities. However, the map indicates that block groups in the center of Temecula have a higher proportion of persons with disabilities. PAGE 6, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING Figure V-7. Percent of Population with Disabilities, City of Temecula, 2000 Source: U.S. Census 2000 and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend <nr aamecula maa than 110% — 17.O% to 33.0% More than 33.0% The 2010 ACS estimates the presence of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Of persons with disabilities who are working age (18 to 64), about half were not in the labor force, 37 percent were employed and 12 percent were unemployed. Household size. The average household size (3.15) in Temecula did not change between 2000 and 2010. As is typical, the average household size of renters in Temecula is slightly smaller (3.07) than the average household size of owners (3.18). Large households, defined by the Census as having five or more persons in a household, made up 18 percent of the total occupied households in 2010. The proportion of large households has not changed substantially since 2000, but the share of renter occupied households with five or more persons increased froml4 percent to 19 percent. Large households can have unique housing needs because of the limited housing stock to serve them- especially rental housing stock as well as lack of support and understanding of familial status protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act. The map in Figure V-8 examines the location of large households within the city. Concentrated block groups are those in which large households make up more than 38 percent of households. Although there are no concentrated block groups in Temecula, block groups on the outskirts of the city tend to have higher percentages of large households. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 7 Figure V-8. Percentage of Large Households by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend Ciryariemecula ME Lan than 20.090 _ 20.096 to 38.090 _ More than 38.095 Familial status. In 2010, half of all households in Temecula were families with children. Of these 15,806 households with children, 77 percent were husband -wife families and 23 percent were single parent households. Figure V-9 displays the city's 2010 household composition. Figure V-9. Household Composition, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not appear to aggregate correctly. Source: 2010 Census. Number Percent ME— Total house- 31111 100% Nonfamily households 5,955 19% Family households 25,826 Husband -wife families 20,483 With children 72,747 Without children 8,342 Female householder, no husband present 3,763 With children 2,632 Without children 1,131 Male householder, no wife present 1,580 With children 7,033 Without children 547 81% 64% 38% 26% 12% 8% 4% 5% 3% 2% Single parent households especially those with single mothers have some of the highest rates of poverty in most communities. As such, they have needs for social services (child care, transportation) and affordable housing. Familial status is also a protected class under fair housing law and, in many communities, one of the most common reasons for fair housing complaints. Single parent households are therefore vulnerable to fair housing discrimination and often have fewer choices in the housing market because of their lower income levels. Approximately 8 percent of all households in Temecula are female -headed households with children. Based on the same definition of concentration as in the ethnicity maps, Figure V-10 shows that there are no concentrations of female -headed households with children in the city. PAGE 8, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING Figure V-10. Percentage of Female - Headed Households with Children by Block Group, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend _-A city &Temecula Less than 14.0% MI 14.0%to280% More than 28.0% Low Income and poverty. Figure V-11 shows the proportion of very low income households (earning less than $25,000) by block group. Approximately 19 percent of all households in Temecula earn less than $25,000, so block groups in which more than 39 percent of households are low income are considered to have low income concentrations. Low income households tend to be concentrated immediately west of I-15. Low income households are also concentrated just outside the western boundary of Temecula. The two block groups just east of I-15 with 19 to 39 percent of low income households, respectively, also had high percentages of female -headed households with children. Figure V-11. Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula, 2009 Source: 2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend Less than 19 0% a19 d%th „p% mare than 1g 0% BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 9 In 2000, 7 percent of Temecula's population, or 3,864 people, were living below the poverty level. This was substantially lower than the rest of Riverside County, the state of California and the U.S. as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010 the poverty rate in Temecula doubled to 14 percent (14,020 people). Despite this large increase, the poverty level in Temecula remained below that of Riverside County, California and the U.S., as shown in Figure V-12. Figure V-12. Poverty Rate, City of Temecula, 2000 and 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2010 American Community Survey. 2000 2010 6.7% 4.2% 14.0% 16.3% Temecula ■Riverside County 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 100% Public Input During the development of the Consolidated Plan and AI, residents and stakeholders were consulted about fair housing barriers and housing and community development needs. A complete discussion of public input can be found in Section II of the Consolidated Plan. This portion of the AI summarizes the findings and responses relevant to fair housing choice in Temecula. Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011 through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the community. Potential barriers to fair housing. Residents and stakeholders rated the relative seriousness of potential barriers to fair housing in Temecula on a scale from zero to nine, where a rating of nine indicates that the factor is a serious barrier. Due to their expertise, stakeholders evaluated a more comprehensive list of barriers. As shown in Figure V-13, on average, most residents have not experienced barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. Income, concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas and a lack of affordable housing to purchase were the top three barriers, and these were a serious problem for 10 to 17 percent of residents. PAGE 10, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure V-13. Potential Fair Housing Barriers — Residents Avg. Rating 2.4 My income level 2.3 Concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas 2.2 Lack of affordable housing to purchase 2.2 Restrictive covenants by builders, developers or homeowners associations 2.1 Lack of affordable housing to rent 1.8 Lack of knowledge among appraisers regarding fair housing 1.4 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 I have poor credit I was given a subprime loan (higher interest rate than normal) My lender told me to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company Real estate agents only showed me housing I could afford in certain neighborhoods I did not get information about private mortgage insurance My lender did not give me an appraisal of my home or property I can't find a real estate professional of the race, ethnicity, disability or gender I prefer Sellers of homes refused to show me their home Housing provider refused to make reasonable accommodations for my disability i■•i1■■•11111 ■-,.■..I1 ,111.1.,. 11111 IMM 1111 111 80% 100% A Seriou s 9 Problem 1 0 Not a Problem 0% 20% 40% 60% Note: n=148. Source: BBC Research fa Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Stakeholders evaluated a comprehensive series of potential barriers to fair housing including economic, demographic and housing factors; land use, zoning and housing policies; capacity issues; lending activities; and real estate activities. The most serious barriers in each category are below. • Income levels of minority and female -headed households had the highest average rating among economic, demographic and housing factors. • Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and neighborhood objections to group homes for persons with disabilities were the most serious barriers associated with land use, zoning and housing policies. • Among capacity issues, a lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing was the most serious potential barrier, followed by a lack of fair housing knowledge on the part of small landlords. • Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer was considered a serious barrier by more than 40 percent of stakeholders. • Among real estate activities, steering, denying the availability of housing and insurance agency discrimination had the highest average ratings. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 11 Figure V-14 identifies the top barriers (average rating of 5.9 or higher) to fair housing as rated by stakeholders. The most serious barriers across all categories include lending and real estate activities as well as NIMBYism. Figure V-14. Most Serious Barriers to Fair Housing Choice — Stakeholders 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.2 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer Neighborhood objections to affordable orassisted housin Income levels of minority and female -headed households Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company 6.1 Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers 6.1 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods 5.9 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing 5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates Poor credit histories of minority borrowers Housing providers falsely denying that housing is available Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties Note: n=21. Source: BBC Research Et Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey. Affordability, services and community climate. Residents responded to a series of questions about affordable housing, public transit and community climate in Temecula. • About one in 10 residents who responded to the survey had been unable to find affordable housing in Temecula. The types of housing sought included single family homes, condos and apartments. • About one in five residents who responded to the survey have tried to access public transit in Temecula and were unable to. Lack of access pertained to a number of locations within Temecula as well as limited hours of transit operation. • The vast majority of residents responding to the survey agree with the statement, "I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula." Residents who do not feel welcome in Temecula explained that they were single parents, gay, of mixed race or not of the Christian faith and these factors made them feel unwelcome. Resident experience with housing discrimination. Residents also responded to several questions regarding fair housing and their past experience with housing discrimination, if any. Only three percent of residents responding to the survey believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure. PAGE 12, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Those residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in housing offered the following descriptions of their experience: • "I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in." • "Realtor steering us away from certain homes." • "Single parent." • "We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller." In response to their experience with housing discrimination, only one individual reported filing a complaint with the ACLU. One wrote a letter to the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) to complain about the real estate agent's steering practices. All residents were asked if they knew who to contact in the case that they experienced housing discrimination. As shown in Figure V-15, only one in 10 respondents stated that they knew who to contact to report housing discrimination. Figure V-15. If you ever felt you were discriminated against and wanted to report it, do you know who you would contact? Note: n=132. Source: BBC Research St Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey. Yes(11%) No (59%) Don't know (3096) Those respondents who knew the organization to contact to report housing discrimination would contact Fair Housing of Riverside County, the Fair Housing hotline, HUD, CA DRE, a lawyer or search the internet. Fair housing resources. With regard to the availability and accessibility of fair housing resources in Temecula, half of stakeholders did not think sufficient information was available. Stakeholders made the following comments about the types of information, resources and training that would be helpful to them: • "Credit counseling." • "I have never seen any leaflets, flyers, or brochures concerning Fair Housing Laws available to the general public in Temecula. If they exist, where are they hidden?" • "Advertise workshops on how to obtain housing in the area." • "A more proactive approach in informing and educating the realtor community of availability of the information and where to send their clientele." Stakeholders suggested a variety of methods to inform residents about fair housing issues. These included emails and websites, city and or county public meetings, industry publications, government publications, internal memos or communications and providing speakers to organizations. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 13 Summary of public input findings. The public outreach conducted for the Consolidated Plan and AI reveal several important findings related to fair housing choice in Temecula: • One in 10 residents had tried to find affordable housing in Temecula without success, and one in five had experienced difficulty trying to access public transit. • Residents report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and the income levels of minority and female -headed households to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula. • The majority of residents feel that people like them are welcome in Temecula. Those who did not feel welcome believe this results from their being single parents, mixed -race families or gay. • Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real estate agents was the type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Housing and Land Use Policy Review This section discusses the housing and land use policies that may affect fair housing in the City of Temecula. Housing profile. A detailed profile of the city's housing market is provided in the Community Profile and Housing Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan (Section I). In sum, the analysis found: • The majority of the city's housing stock is new and in good condition—over 90 percent was built after 1980. Few residents live in substandard units and few reported living in overcrowded units. • Between 2000 and 2010 median rent and median home value in Temecula increased faster than resident incomes. Thus, both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past decade. • Temecula's median rent in 2010 was relatively high at $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city's renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. Forty-three percent of Temecula residents (33% of renters) can afford the city's 2010 median home value of $289,800. • There is a substantial shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than $35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula -45 percent of all renter households— earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 affordable units -11 percent of all rental units. PAGE 14, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Zoning codes, planning and zoning commission, planning fees OR Development regulations review. BBC reviewed the City of Temecula's zoning regulations, comprehensive plan and planning fees to assess potential fair housing concerns or opportunities resulting from the development process. This review identified two possible fair housing concerns: • Neither household nor family is defined in the city's zoning code, which may exclude unrelated persons with disabilities from living together. • Congregate care and residential care facilities for seven or more are only addressed for the elderly, which may exclude persons with disabilities from similar living arrangements. To evaluate potential fair housing concerns within the city's zoning code, BBC utilized a "Review of Public Policies and Practices (Zoning and Planning Codes)" form recently circulated by the Los Angeles fair housing office of HUD. This section poses the questions from this checklist, along with responses about the city's code. Does the Code definition of "family" have the effect of discriminating against unrelated individuals with disabilities who reside together in a congregate or group living arrangement? The city's code does not define the term "family," nor does it explicitly state that the occupants of a single family dwelling unit must be related. It does specify the occupants of a single family unit as "one household," which is not defined. The code allows residential care facilities and facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children in all residential zones provided there are six or fewer occupants. Is the Code definition of "disability" the same as the Fair Housing Act? Yes. The Code defines a "disabled person" or "person with a disability" as an "individual who has a physical or mental impairment that limits one or more of that person's major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone who has a record of having such an impairment. Such an impairment shall not include an individual's current, illegal use of a controlled substance." Does the zoning ordinance restrict housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities and mischaracterize such housing as a "boarding or rooming house" or "hotel"? No. Rooming and boarding houses, although not specifically defined in the code, are commercial and are distinct from group homes and residential care facilities, which are defined and zoned residential. Does the zoning ordinance deny housing opportunities for disability individuals with on site housing supporting services? No. Residential care facilities, which are permitted by right in all residential zones if they have six or fewer occupants, include on site support services by definition. Does the jurisdiction policy allow any number of unrelated persons to reside together, but restrict such occupancy, if the residents are disabled? The city does not specify the number of related or unrelated persons in one household. However, group homes or residential care facilities must have six or fewer people in order to be permitted in any residential zone. Congregate care for the elderly and residential care facilities for the elderly with seven or more are permitted in medium and high density residential zones and conditionally permitted in all other residential zones. BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 15 Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not specifically for the elderly are not addressed in residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. Does the jurisdiction policy not allow disabled persons to make reasonable modifications or provide reasonable accommodation for disabled people who live in municipal -supplied or managed residential housing? No. Does the jurisdiction require apublic hearing to obtain public input for specific exceptions to zoning and land -use rules for disabled applicants and is the hearing only for disabled applicants rather than for all applicants? No. Public hearings are required to obtain a conditional use permit, variance or amendment to development code, but the hearing is not specific to persons with disabilities. Does the zoning ordinance address mixed uses? How are the residential land uses discussed? What standards apply?Yes. Village Centers, designated by the general plan or zoned with the application of the village center overlay zoning district, are intended to create a mixture of land uses with pedestrian orientation with plazas, open spaces and mass transit opportunities. Residential design considerations include allowing for residential density increases for those projects that offer mixed uses with a diversity of housing opportunities including the provision of affordable housing; integrating mixed uses into a single structure with retail on the lower level, office and residential on upper levels; and considering higher residential densities and intensities that will support mass transit options. Does the zoning ordinance describe any areas in this jurisdiction as exclusive? No. Are there exclusions or discussions of limiting housing to any of the following groups: race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, marital status or familial status and/or creed of national origin? No. Are there any restrictions for Senior Housing in the zoning ordinance? If yes, do the restrictions comply with Federal law on housing for older persons (i. e., solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or at least one person 55 years of age and has significant facilities or services to meet the physical or social needs of older people)? There are no restrictions on senior housing, per se. The definition of senior citizen housing complexes (not including state -licensed rest homes, group homes, convalescent hospitals, etc.) is consistent with federal law. Senior citizen housing complexes, or congregate care for the elderly, are permitted by right in low density, low medium density, medium density and high density residential zones. Other multifamily housing is only permitted by right in medium and high density residential zones. Residential care facilities for the elderly are defined as "housing arrangements chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided." Residential care facilities for the elderly with six or fewer occupants are permitted in all residential zones. Those with seven or more are permitted in medium and high density residential zones and require a CUP in all others. PAGE 16, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Special development standards allowing higher maximum densities apply to senior housing. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various density incentives and development standard concessions as outlined in section 17.10.020 of the code. Does the zoning ordinance contain any special provisions for making housing accessible to persons with disabilities? Yes. Section 17.03.065 specifically addresses reasonable accommodations. Does the zoning ordinance establish occupancy standards or maximum occupancy limits? Yes. Although family households are not subject to maximum occupancy limits, group homes are limited to six or fewer persons. (Group homes for the elderly with more than six are required to obtain a conditional use permit). Does the zoning ordinance include a discussion of fair housing? Yes. "Fair Housing Laws," meaning the Federal Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment Housing Act, are referenced in section 17.03.065 of the code in the context of reasonable accommodations. Describe the minimum standards and amenities required by the ordinance for a multiplefamily project with respect to handicap parking Section 17.24.040-D in the code discusses the minimum number of disabled parking spaces required for both non-residential and multifamily parking. Residential uses are required to provide one parking space designated for the disabled for each dwelling unit that is designated for the disabled. Ultimate authority for disabled parking requirements is deferred to the state of California and the American Disabilities Act. Does the zoning code distinguish senior citizen housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? In the standard zoning districts (residential, commercial/office/industrial and public/institutional) senior housing is not distinguished from other residential uses by the application of a CUP. However, there are two overlay districts (PDO -7 and PDO -10) in which multifamily housing is permitted by right, but congregate care for the elderly requires a CUP. Does the zoning code distinguish handicapped housing from other single family residential and multifamily residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? Although handicapped housing is not distinguished by the application of a CUP, it is distinguished by omission. In residential districts, congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants is only addressed as specific to the elderly. This effectively excludes congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. The same is true for commercial/office/industrial zoning districts and most overlay districts. How are "special group residential housing" defined in the jurisdiction zoning code? The code defines a group home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is licensed by the state. Other special group housing definitions included in the code are below. • Congregate care: apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or for the disabled in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5, which is arranged in a group setting that includes independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared dining and recreational facilities. (Congregate care facilities for the elderly are permitted in L-2, LM, MH and H residential zones). BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 17 Although the code definition of congregate care is not specific to the elderly, the only residential use type included in the zoning code is "Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly." This may have the effect of excluding congregate care facilities for persons with disabilities. • Convalescent facility: a state -licensed facility which provides long-term nursing, dietary and other medical services except surgery or primary treatments customarily provided in a hospital, to convalescents or invalids. (Permitted in M and H residential zones). • Residential care facility: means any family home, group care facility, or similar facility determined by the Director of Social Services, established for 24-hour non-medical care of persons in need of personal services, supervision or assistance. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people. Residential care facilities with more than six occupants are not listed as a residential use in the code). • Residential care facility for the elderly: a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons 60 years of age or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain in the facility. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven to 12 people). • Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children: not defined. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven to 12 people). • Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility: not defined. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with seven or more people). • Emergency shelter: a facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling and access to other social programs. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other residential zones). • Transitional Housing: not defined. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other residential zones). • Community care facility: any facility, place or building which is maintained and operated to provide non-medical residential care, day treatment, adult day care or foster family agency services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically disabled, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children, and includes residential facilities, adult day care facilities, day treatment facilities, foster family homes, small family homes, social rehabilitation facilities, community treatment facilities, and social day care facilities. (Not included in residential uses listed in the code). PAGE 18, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING • Senior citizen housing complexes: licensed housing for persons 62 years of age or older, or licensed housing for persons 55 years of age or older, including such housing facilities as retirement villas, apartments, condominiums, etc.; but not including state -licensed rest homes, group homes, convalescent hospitals, etc., which are regulated by other provisions of this development code. (These are considered the same as congregate care for the elderly in residential uses included in the code). Does the jurisdiction's planning and building codes presently make specific reference to the accessibility requirements contained in the 1988 amendment to the Fair Housing Act? The specific amendment is not mentioned, but the discussion of fair housing laws upholds the Federal Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment Housing Act "as these statutes now exist or may be amended from time to time." Is there any provision for monitoring compliance? Section 17.03.100 of the development code addresses enforcement for all violations of the zoning code. Public Housing Authority policies. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) serves as the housing authority for the City of Temecula, as well as Riverside County. Their mission is to "provide affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities to low and moderate income families including elderly and handicapped persons, while supporting programs to foster economic self-sufficiency." The policies and procedures of the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside were reviewed as part of the FY2012-2016 AI. Section 8 voucher program. The HACR currently has funding to serve 8,550 families in Riverside County through the federal Section 8 voucher program. Approximately two percent, or 136 families, of those being served in Riverside County live in Temecula. The housing authority reports that it has approximately 50,000 families on the waiting list. The waiting list is currently closed, except to those who are 75 years or older or are veterans. According to the HACR, it is relatively easy for voucher holders to find a unit that accepts Section 8 vouchers, most likely due to the current housing market conditions in Riverside County (large supply of housing stock and low rents). According to the 2009 Riverside County AI, owners are more likely to accept Section 8 vouchers now than in 2003; however, some landlords who reduce their rent to gain occupancy may be anticipating a foreclosure and in several months families may be forced to relocate and forfeit their security deposits. The resulting challenge for the housing authority is screening the properties to determine their legitimacy. Once a family is awarded a voucher, the HACR encourages certificate holders to locate in nontraditional areas by showing them neighborhood maps with poverty concentrations and discussing the benefits of living in low poverty areas. However, families tend to select properties near their support network, which is often in a low income area. Affordable units. The housing authority also owns and manages 469 rental units scattered throughout Riverside County. None of these properties are located in Temecula. Seven percent of the units in Riverside County are accessible to persons with physical disabilities. The waiting list for public housing is open, but currently has 78,000 families. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 19 Client demographics. There are 136 families in Temecula receiving housing assistance in the form of Section 8 vouchers. There are another 1,412 families on the waiting list for housing services. Of those currently holding vouchers, 26 percent are Hispanic and 14 percent are African American. Eighty- four percent are elderly or disabled and 14 percent are families with children. Figure V-16 compares the characteristics of families on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers in Temecula with the waiting list in Riverside County as a whole. Figure V-16. HACR Section 8 Waiting List, City of Temecula Source: Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. Riverside Temecula County Waiting list total 1,412 53,688 Extremely low income <=30%AMI 69% 77% Elderly families 15% 7% Families with Disabilities 25% 21% Families with children 60% 64% Affordable Development Temecula's Redevelopment Agency has financed twelve affordable housing projects within the city, creating 574 multi -family rental units to serve low and moderate income families within the City of Temecula. The redevelopment agency focuses on improving blighted conditions, which are often found in under -resourced areas. As a result, most affordable development projects are concentrated in the low income portions of the city. Figure V-14. Affordable Housing and Low Income Concentration, City of Temecula, 2010 Source: 2009 Claritas, City of Temecula and BBC Research & Consulting. Legend * subsidized Housing = City 01 Temecula Leg than 19.096 _ 19.03610 39.096 Mot than 39.096 PAGE 20, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH ST CONSULTING The following figure summarizes the city's inventory of affordable housing developments and the number of Section 8 vouchers currently being used in the City of Temecula. As of January, 2012, there are 710 families receiving some form of rental housing assistance in Temecula. Figure V-17. Affordable Housing and Section 8 Vouchers, City of Temecula, 2012 Source: Housing Authority of Riverside County and BBC Research be Consulting. Affordable Housing Developments in Temecula Number of Units Rancho Creek Apts. Rancho West Apts. L Mission Village AptIMPF 30 150 Riverbank Senior Apts. 65 Icon Historical Building (Dalton II) 11111. Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 22 Temecula Reflection Summerhouse Warehouse at Creekside Oaktree Apts. Rancho California Apts. 20 32 40 55 Creekside Apts. 49 Total Units 574 Section 8 Voucers used in Temecula 136 Total Rental Subsidized Units/Vouchers 710 Fair Lending Analysis This section contains an analysis of mortgage loan and community reinvestment data. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data are commonly used in AI's to examine fair lending practices within a jurisdiction. The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)8 is responsible to facilitate public access to data that depository institutions must disclose under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) and the aggregation of annual HMDA data, by census tract, for each metropolitan statistical area (MSA). CRA compliance. The CRA is federal legislation requiring that financial institutions progressively seek to enhance community development within the area they serve. On a regular basis, financial institutions submit information about mortgage loan applications as well as materials documenting their community development activity. The records are reviewed to determine if the institution satisfied CRA requirements. The assessment includes a review of records as related to the following: • Commitment to evaluating and servicing community credit needs; • Offering and marketing various credit programs; • Record of opening and closing of offices; a The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards and report forms for the federal examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make recommendations to promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 21 • Discrimination and other illegal credit practices; and • Community development initiatives. The data are evaluated and a rating for each institution is determined. Ratings for institutions range from substantial noncompliance in meeting credit needs to an outstanding record of meeting community needs. Only one financial institution, Temecula Valley Bank, received CRA exams in Temecula in the past five years.' Temecula Valley Bank was most recently examined on March 2, 2009 and received a satisfactory rating. It should be noted that large banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, U.S. Bank, Chase, Pacific Trust and Pacific Western are examined at their regional headquarter offices; the latest CRA exams for these banks were either Satisfactory or Outstanding. Mortgage lending. HMDA data are widely used to detect evidence of discrimination in mortgage lending. In fact, concern about discriminatory lending practices in the 1970s led to the requirement for financial institutions to collect and report HMDA data. The variables contained in the HMDA dataset have expanded over time, allowing for more comprehensive analyses and better results. However, despite expansions in the data reported, HMDA analyses remain limited because of the information that is not reported. As such, studies of lending disparities that use HMDA data carry a similar caveat: HMDA data can be used to determine disparities in loan originations and interest rates among borrowers of different races, ethnicities, genders, and location of the property they hope to own. The data can also be used to explain many of the reasons for any lending disparities (e.g., poor credit history). Yet HMDA data do not contain all of the factors that are evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a loan to a borrower. Basically, the data provide a lot of information about the lending decision—but not all of the information. Beginning in 2004, HMDA data contained the interest rates on higher -priced mortgage loans. This allows examinations of disparities in high-cost, including subprime, loans among different racial and ethnic groups. It is important to remember that subprime loans are not always predatory or suggest fair lending issues, and that the numerous factors that can make a loan "predatory" are not adequately represented in available data. Therefore, actual predatory practices cannot be identified through HMDA data analysis. However, the data analysis can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is warranted, and how public education and outreach efforts should be targeted. The Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of compliance with fair lending regulations. When federal regulators examine financial institutions, they use HMDA data to determine if applicants of a certain gender, race or ethnicity are rejected at statistically significant higher rates than applicants with other characteristics are. The Federal Reserve uses a combination of sophisticated statistical modeling and loan file sampling and review to detect lending discrimination. 9 All state member banks, state nonmember banks, national banks and savings associations, except small institutions, are subject to data collection and reporting requirements of CRA. A small institution is a bank or thrift that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total assets of less than $250 million and was independent or an affiliate of a holding company that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total banking and thrift assets of less than $1 billion. PAGE 22, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING This section uses the analysis of HMDA data to uncover: • The geographic areas in Temecula where high-cost lending and loan denials are concentrated, and the correlation of these areas with concentrations of minority and low income households; • Disparities in high-cost lending and loan denials across different racial and ethnic groups. Loan applications in Temecula. During 2010, there were 4,755 loan applications made in Temecula secured by residential properties that intended to be occupied by owners. Over half (56%) of the loan applications were for refinances, 42 percent were for home purchases and the remaining 2 percent were for home improvement. About 2,900 of these loans were conventional loans and the rest were government -guaranteed loans. Two-thirds of loan applications in Temecula during 2010 were approved and originated. Fifteen percent of all loan applications in Temecula were denied. Figure V-18 displays the action taken on Temecula loan applications in 2010. Figure V-18. Loan Applications and Action Taken, City of Temecula, 2010 Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non -occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. File closed for incompleteness (3.5%) Application withdrawn by applicant (11.496" Application denied byfiliso.. financial institution (15.3%) Application approved but not accepted (5.096) Loan originated (64.796) Denial rates by race and ethnicity. Figure V-19 presents denial rates by race and ethnicity. It is focused on the largest racial/ethnic groups in Temecula: White, Hispanic, Asian and African American. African American applicants had the lowest denial rate at 11 percent. Both Hispanic and Asian borrowers were denied at slightly higher rates than White borrowers. Overall, the differences in denial, origination and approval rates are modest. BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 23 Figure V-19. Result of Mortgage Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2010 Race/Ethnicity of Applicant Percent of Applications Approved Loans but Not Accepted Percent o Originated by Applicant Loans Denie White 67.4% 4.6% 14.8% African American Asian non -Hispanic Hispanic 68.5% 60.1% 67.1% 64.2% 3.8% 10.8% 7.3% 15.9% 4.9% 5.4% 14.6% 17.1% dfr erican / White difference Asian / White difference rlce 1.1% nRor Q toy -7.3% 2.7% 1.0% Hispanic / non -Hispanic difference -2.9% 0.5% 2.5% Note: Does not include loans far multifamily properties or non -occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Another important HMDA analysis involves examining the reasons for denial by type of loan and applicant. These characteristics may help explain some of the variation in approval rates among applicants. Figure V-20 show the reasons for denials of loan applications by race and income. As the table demonstrates, Hispanics and African Americans have a much higher proportion of loans that are denied because of credit history than Whites and Non -Hispanics, and a smaller percentage of incomplete loan applications. Figure V-20. Reasons for Denials of Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity of Applicant, City of Temecula, 2010 bt- Credit Mortgage ace/Ethnicity come Credit Insufficient Unverifiable Application Insurance of Applicant Ratio History History Collateral Cash Information Incomplete Denied Overall 23.2% 1.5% 14.8% 23.4% 3.5% 5.3% 10.9% 0.3% 17.2% White 22.5% 1.2% 13.3% 25.4% 3.7% 5.5% 11.2% 0.0% 17.2% Black or African American 26.3% Asian 31.4% Not Hispanic or Latino 23.3% 0.0% 2.0% 1.5% 31.6% 15.7% 12.7% 15.896 19.696 26.396 5.396 5.9% 4.096 0.0% 7.8% 4.896 0.0% 3.9% 11.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.496 0.0% 15.8% 13.7% 16.0% 20.6% Hispanic or Latino 23.796 2.1%. 20.696 14.496 4.196 8.296 6.2% Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non -occupants. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. PAGE 24, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH ET CONSULTING Denial rate by income by census tract. On average, 15 percent of loan applications in Temecula are denied. However, an analysis of loan applications by census Tracts reveals that one census Tract in Temecula has a much higher denial rate of 26 percent. Lenders are much less likely to approve loans for homes located in this Census tract (432.15). Figure V-21 overlays this high denial census tract with the low income concentration map. As indicated by the map, this high rate of denial occurs in the low income concentrated block group. Figure V-21. Loan Denials and Percent of Low Income Households, City of Temecula Source: 2009 Claritas, 2010 HMDA and BBC Research & Consulting. egena High Dental Rate Ory of Temecula Less than 190% _ 190%to 39.0,6 Mare than 39.0% While higher denial rates are common for lower incomes, residents of all income levels within census tract 432.15 are denied more frequently than residents with similar incomes in other parts of Temecula. Figure V-22 compares the denial rates for Temecula as a whole with Census Tract 432.15 for various income levels. Even for those earning 200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year), residents of census tract 432.15 are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent citywide. Figure V-22. Denials by Income, City of Temecula, 2010 Notes: The HUD MFI for Temecula was 365,000 in 2010. Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting. Income Level Denials in Denials in Census Tract Temecula 432.15 Overall 15.3% 26.3% 200% MFI or greater 150%-199% MFI 15.3% 21.0% 13.1% 20.8% 10MFI 13.7% 35.7% Less than 100% MFI 18.3% 53.8% BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 25 These data suggest that it is significantly harder for borrowers who live in the city's lowest income areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high income households. Subprime analysis. This section examines how often minorities in Temecula received subprime loans compared to Whites. For the purposes of this section, we define "subprime" as a loan with an APR of more than three percentage points above comparable Treasuries. This is consistent with the intent of the Federal Reserve in defining "subprime" in the HMDA data. According to the 2010 HMDA data, there were only 18 subprime loans in Temecula, of 3,077 originated loans. There was no indication that subprime loans were targeted to specific racial or ethnic gro ups. Complaints and Legal Review This section reviews fair housing complaint data and legal cases related to fair housing violations to highlight the prevalence of and trends in fair housing violations. Fair housing complaint data and legal cases are important to pinpoint the types of discrimination that are most prevalent and detect improvements or deterioration in fair housing conditions. HUD fair housing complaints. Residents who feel they have been discriminated against may contact HUD directly or the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Contacting HUD. Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at (http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), by calling 1-800-669-9777 or by contacting the HUD Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in San Francisco at 1-800-347-3739. When HUD receives a complaint, the department will notify the person who filed the complaint, then notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act. A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD attempts to reach an agreement between the two parties involved. If achieved, this "conciliation agreement" must lay out provisions to protect the filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no further action unless the agreement is breached, in which case HUD will recommend that the Attorney General file suit. If a person needs immediate help to stop a serious problem being caused by a Fair Housing Act violation, HUD may assist as soon as a complaint is filed. HUD may authorize the Attorney General to go to court to seek temporary or preliminary relief, pending the outcome of the complaint, if irreparable harm is likely to occur without HUD's intervention and there is substantial evidence indicating a violation of the Fair Housing Act. From January 1, 2006 through December 15, 2011, five complaints were filed by or against Temecula residents and businesses. Four complaints were brought on the basis of discrimination because of disability; the other was because of race. In Riverside County as a whole, 272 complaints were filed over the same period. Forty-six percent were brought on the basis of discrimination because of disability and 33 percent on the basis of discrimination because of race, color or national origin. Familial status accounted for another 11 percent of complaints in Riverside County followed by sex (8%) and religion (2%). PAGE 26, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Figure V-23 displays the complaints filed in Temecula over the past six years. The most common issues cited were discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental and failure to make reasonable accommodation. Two complaints closed following a successful settlement. Two more closed after HUD found "no reasonable cause to believe that housing discrimination occurred.s10 Figure V-23. Fair Housing Complaints, City of Temecula, 2006-2011 206 2007 Reason for Issue(s) Cited Discrimination 0 Disability Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges Conciliated or Resolved, with and failure to make/permit reasonable compensation of $1,300 accommodation 2008 1 Disability Failureto make asonable accommodation Adm' 2009 0 2010 1 Disability Discrimination in the making of loans Conciliated or Resolved Race Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate; discriminatory advertising, statements and notices; and discriminatory acts under Section 818 No Cause Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate No Cause Total 5 Notes: Complaints reported for 2011 includes those filed between 1/1/2011 and 12/15/2011. Complainants are allowed to cite more than one issue when filing a complaint. Source: HUD and BBC Research & Consulting. Contacting the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Residents with fair housing complaints can also contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), a county -wide non-profit organization that seeks to affirmatively address and promote fair housing rights and further other housing opportunities for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, presence of children, disability, ancestry, marital status, or other arbitrary factors. The FHCRC provides the following fair housing services to communities throughout Riverside County: • Anti -discrimination: Receive, investigate, resolve (through conciliation or referral to enforcement agency: HUD; DFEH; attorney) housing discrimination complaints; also conduct workshops, seminars; disseminate written fair housing information. In order to file a complaint a resident can call the FHCRC or complete a complaint form on their website. • Landlord -tenant: Receive, investigate, mediate, counsel renter/owner rights and responsibilities; also conduct workshops, seminars; disseminate written landlord -tenant information. • Training and technical assistance: Conduct property management training workshops and seminars; serve on quasi -government technical advisory and working groups. to For a definition of no cause determination, please visit: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program offices/fair housing equal opp/complaint-process BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 27 • Enforcement of housing rights: Conduct housing discrimination audits and tests; refer discrimination cases to HUD, DFEH or private attorney. • Administrative hearings: Conduct administrative hearings for Public Housing Authority tenant grievance and Section 8 hearings. • Special projects: The FHCRC conducts and participates in various activities throughout the year. • Foreclosure prevention: The FHCRC offers confidential one-on-one counseling with certified housing counselors for residents in fear of foreclosure. The counseling session is designed to help determine the cause of the delinquency, develop a monthly spending plan and discuss possible options to enable residents to meet their mortgage obligations. • First time buyers: HUD requires the completion of a Homebuyer Counseling Course for all borrowers receiving First Time Homebuyer Program assistance. Legal cases. As part of the fair housing analysis, recent legal cases were reviewed to determine significant fair housing issues and trends in the area. Although there have been no legal cases in the City of Temecula, there were several recent legal cases in Riverside County; these are highlighted to demonstrate regional trends in fair housing violations. The most recent case involved housing conditions in a mobile home park. One case involved age restrictions in portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The final two cases took place in the City of Riverside and involved discrimination on the basis of sex, race and/or family status. These cases were found on websites maintained by the Department of Justice, the National Fair Housing Advocate and HUD. In many cases, text was borrowed directly from the legal briefs. The United States v Harvey Duro (2009). Harvey Duro, a member of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian tribe operated a desert trailer park commonly called "Duroville" mobile home park, on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. According to a 2007 Department of Justice press release, the park consists of 300 to 400 trailers inhabited by 2,000 to 6,000 persons, predominantly migrant farm workers and their families. Based on health and safety concerns, the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a cease and desist order to Duro in 2003 which required him to immediately stop operating the trailer park and associated businesses, and to return the property to its original condition. Duro agreed to make improvements to bring the facility into compliance with government codes and regulations but failed to do so. In 2007 the United States filed a lawsuit against Duro alleging that Duro was operating without a permit, that conditions at the trailer park posed an imminent threat to the health and safety of several thousand residents and that Duro failed to make improvements he promised to make in 2004. Some of the substandard conditions in Duroville included defective construction, faulty electrical wiring, unhealthful distribution of drinking water and a deeply flawed septic system. In 2009, the Court provided the following fundamental findings and conclusions: (1) The commercial mobile home park on its allotment to Harvey Duro, Sr., is unlawful; (2) despite recent efforts, the mobile home park is unsafe and unhealthy; (3) despite recent efforts, there is no presently available relocation facilities for the vast majority of the residents of the Park; and (4) immediate closure of the Park under current circumstances would create an unacceptable humanitarian crisis for thousands of people. PAGE 28, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Based on these findings, the Court appointed a Receiver to administer and manage the Park for two years. The Receiver was tasked with addressing a number of health and safety concerns and encouraging park residents to relocate to safe, healthy, affordable and available housing. The court also encouraged local governmental and non-governmental organizations who had been and wished to be involved in resolving this crisis to continue their efforts to develop safe, healthy, affordable, and available housing for the residents of the Park. Gibson v. County of Riverside (1995, 1997, 2002). Since 1978, the County of Riverside has enacted ordinances imposing age restrictions on residents in certain areas within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Although the specific age restrictions have changed through the years, the ordinances effectively limited occupancy to seniors. In May of 1994, several residents filed a complaint against the county claiming the county's use of its zoning power to impose age restrictions on the residential use of real property violates the Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. In 1996, the Court concluded the age -restricting ordinance was null and void based on California state code which declares any zoning decision by a county to be "null and void" if it denies to anyone the enjoyment of residence because of age. After a series of appeals, in 2002 the Court held that the county's actions in enacting ordinances imposing age restrictions on persons occupying dwelling units in certain areas violated the Fair Housing Act's prohibition on familial -status based discrimination. United States v. Wingo (2002). In December of 2000 a complaint was filed against Wingo Properties that alleged that the owners and managers of two Riverside apartment complexes engaged in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and by sexually harassing their female tenants. Apartment manager Vinnie Stancyk subjected female tenants at the complex to repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment, including conditioning the privileges of tenancy on tenants performing sexual acts. According to the Justice Department, the property owners William David Wingo and Karen Wingo Cipriano knew or should have known about this harassment and took no action to halt or prevent it. In addition, the defendants engaged in a variety of discriminatory conduct toward black and Latino apartment -seekers, including: refusing to rent to them, throwing away their rental applications, using racial epithets toward them, refusing to let them have minority guests, and evicting them because of their race or national origin. On August 8, 2002, the court entered a consent order that required the defendants to pay $35,000 in civil penalties and $355,000 into a fund to compensate victims of the defendants' discriminatory conduct. The consent order also barred the manager of the apartment complexes from working in the rental real estate business. In addition, the owners of the complexes were required to train all employees on their obligations under the Fair Housing Act, implement a discrimination complaint policy, retain an independent agency to conduct at least three fair housing tests per year at each of their properties, and submit to monitoring by the Justice Department. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 29 Smoke Tree Apartments (1997). In another Riverside case, Smoke Tree Apartments managers John and Mary Harding agreed to pay $100,000 to settle claims that it had violated the Fair Housing Act by discriminating on the basis on race and family status. Tenants originally voiced their complaints to the Fair Housing Council over the alleged segregation of families with children at Smoke Tree Apartments. Tenants claimed that the owners and managers had reserved one side of the complex for families with children and the other side of the complex for single or married adults who did not have children. The plaintiffs also claimed that young children were forbidden to cross over into the "adult" side of the Smoke Tree complex. Families with children were also allegedly denied use of some of the Smoke Tree's services and facilities. According to the suit, children were harassed by managers and unreasonable rules and regulations against children and their families were enforced at Smoke Tree. The claims of racial discrimination at Smoke Tree Apartments came from a former manager of the complex. She said in her complaint that she was ordered by the owners to apply discriminatory rental policies against minorities and families with children. The former manager said that the owners of Smoke Tree Apartments were aware that the policies were discriminatory. Fair Housing Impediments, Recommendations and Action Plan This section summarizes the impediments to fair housing choice identified in the research conducted for the FY2012-2016 AI and recommends a Fair Housing Action Plan for FY2012-2016. Fair housing choice in Temecula. As a relatively new city, Temecula does not have past cultural or institutional barriers to fair housing. Although Temecula residents predominantly identify themselves as non -Hispanic White, the city has a sizable population of residents with various other races and Hispanic ethnicity. This analysis found no geographic areas in the city with significant concentrations by race or ethnicity. Instead, the city has two areas where low income households are concentrated: The two block groups just east of I-15 contain 19 and 39 percent of low income households, respectively. These are also the areas within the city where mortgage loan denials were the highest in 2010. Even for those earning 200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year), residents of one low income census tract (432.15) are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent citywide. About half of the city's affordable housing developments are located in the concentrated areas. Fair housing barriers related to low income and low income household concentrations were named as the top two in the city according to residents. It should be noted, however, that all potential barriers were rated very low by residents (2.4 on a scale of 0 to 9, where 9 is the most serious barrier), including these two. Residents report low levels of past experience with housing discrimination (just three percent believe they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure). There were only five fair housing complaints filed in Temecula during the past five years and no fair housing lawsuits. The vast majority of residents responding to the AI survey agree with the statement, "I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula." Stakeholders, in contrast, ranked potential fair housing barriers with higher levels of seriousness. Stakeholders named lenders' failure to disclose private mortgage insurance company determinations and NIMBYism as the top fair housing barriers in Temecula (both with ratings of 6.6). PAGE 30, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Fair Housing Action Plan This section identifies the impediments to fair housing choice found through the research conducted for this AI. This section also presents recommended action items for mitigating the identified barriers. According to HUD, an impediment occurs only if it affects a protected class. Where a protected class is not directly affected, we have identified a fair housing "observation." Observation No. 1—Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to housing choice. According to the survey completed for this AI, one in 10 residents were unable to find affordable housing in Temecula when there were looking for a place to live. Temecula's median rent in 2010 was $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city's renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened. A quantitative comparison of supply and demand for rental housing in Temecula found that there is a substantial shortage of rental units affordable to low income households. In 2010, 45 percent of all renter households in Temecula earned less than $35,000, but only 11 percent of all rental units were affordable to this group. There are approximately 1,400 Temecula residents currently on the waiting list for housing services with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside. Is this a fair housing barrier? Lack of affordable housing can lead to income, racial and ethnic segregation and may disproportionately restrict housing choices for certain protected classes. This may occur because racial and ethnic minorities have lower incomes or because persons with disabilities require specific housing accommodations and need affordable housing due to limitations on employment. Although it does not appear that the shortage of affordable rentals in the city has led to racial or ethnic segregation, continued concentration of affordable housing in certain areas of the city could lead to segregated conditions. • Action item No. 1-1. Continue to diversify housing stock. The City of Temecula should make a concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of I-15. • Action Items No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The city should also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety net for its lowest income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals and are likely cost burdened and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include supporting homeless shelters, food pantries, emergency assistance programs and social service operations. Observation No. 2—Steering may be a fair housing impediment. Anecdotal evidence from stakeholders suggests that steering by real estate agents could be a barrier to fair housing for Temecula residents. Stakeholders also rated neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing as one of the most serious barriers to fair housing. Neighborhood opposition to certain types of housing or residents could influence where real estate agents show their clients homes. BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 31 The residents in the AI survey who believe they have experienced housing discrimination in Temecula most commonly described this discrimination as steering: > "I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in." > "Realtor steering us away from certain homes." > "Single parent." > "We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller." Why is this a fair housing barrier? Steering is a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. In addition, steering can perpetuate segregated housing conditions. • Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula's real estate professionals. City staff should present the results of the AI at an event with real estate professionals and engage in a discussion about steering as a potential impediment to housing choice. The city should also consider working with a task force sponsored by the real estate community to better educate residents about fair housing rights (also see Action Item No. 5). Finally, the city may want to work with a regional fair housing organization to conduct testing about steering, especially when residential sales activities increase. Impediment No. 3—Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable housing development. Although the zoning review did not find any egregious barriers to affordable housing creation in Temecula, the review highlighted two fair housing concerns: • Neither household nor family is defined in the city's zoning code, which may exclude unrelated persons with disabilities from living together. • Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not specifically for the elderly are omitted from residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude congregate care and residential care of seven or more occupants for those with disabilities. • Action Item 3. The city should clarify the definition of family so that it does not exclude unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones. Why is this a fair housing barrier? Zoning regulations that could be interpreted to disallow group homes occupied by persons with disabilities in residential settings can create barriers to fair housing choice. It is in a city's best interest to be transparent about its group home zoning regulations to avoid misinterpretations that cause unequal access to housing for persons with disabilities. Observation No. 4—High loan denials in low income areas. It is significantly harder for borrowers who live in the city's lowest income areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high income households. This may be an indicator that the private market is unwilling to invest in such areas, specifically in the neighborhood immediately west of I-15. Disinvestment could lead to neighborhood decline if residents are unable to secure loans to improve and maintain their homes. PAGE 32, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING Is this a fair housing barrier? Low income residents are not a protected class under Fair Housing Law; therefore, lack of mortgage loan approvals in low income areas (if they are not also minority concentrated areas) is not a fair housing impediment. However, it is prudent for the city to address this potential issue to avoid neighborhood deterioration caused by lack of private capital invested in low income areas. • Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The city should invest in community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate neighborhood deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of loan denials in the areas east of I-15. In addition, public improvements in low income areas ensure that the amenities offered in these areas are comparable to amenities in higher income areas. Inequality of neighborhood amenities can become a fair housing concern if lower quality neighborhoods are predominantly occupied by members of protected classes. Observation No. 5—There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing. Information about fair housing is difficult to find on the city's website and, according to the survey conducted for this AI, most residents are unaware about how to report fair housing violations. Although few residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination, only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination. Stakeholders also expressed concern about the availability of fair housing information and resources. Why is this a concern? Lack of fair housing information can become an impediment if such information is not equally available to all protected classes. In addition, an impediment could be created if inadequate fair housing information leads to lack of corrective action by housing providers and real estate professionals. • Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of Temecula should add easy to find fair housing information on its website. An example of a comprehensive website with fair housing information in a semi -rural, affluent jurisdiction in Colorado is Douglas County's (see http://www.douglas.co.us/CDBG/Fair Housing.html). It is critical that the city have a link to HUD's complaint -taking website and the State of California Fair Employment and Housing Commission, where residents may file complaints if they desire. • The city should also disseminate fair housing information quarterly during the year, piggybacking on well -attended events (e.g., summer festivals, public school events. Some communities sponsor fair housing poster contests for local school children). BBC RESEARCH St CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 33 APPENDIX A. Citizen Participation Plan City of Temecula Citizen Participation Plan July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Temecula is required to adopt a Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's procedure for ensuring and encouraging citizens to participate in the development of the City's Consolidated Plan for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The City of Temecula's CDBG funding has historically been administered by the County of Riverside on behalf of the City of Temecula. Since the City of Temecula will become an entitlement community effective July 1, 2012, the City of Temecula (rather than the County of Riverside) will be able to administer and allocate the City's CDBG funding to the Temecula community directly from HUD. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the City to have and follow a Citizen Participation Plan (CCP) as a condition of receiving funds. In order to ensure maximum participation in the consolidated planning process among all populations and needs groups, and in order to ensure that their issues and concerns are adequately addressed, the City of Temecula will follow the standards set forth in its adopted Citizen Participation Plan. This Citizen Participation is a plan to involve the community as the City develops the required HUD Plans for CDBG funding including the multi-year Consolidated Plan, the annual Action Plan, and the yearly review of the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to ensure the citizens are involved in the use of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) or other HUD grants including, if such funding becomes available to the City of Temecula, the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and the Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) Program. The yearly participation process will be developed and monitored by the City of Temecula Community Development Department. PURPOSE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN The City of Temecula recognizes the importance of public participation in both defining and understanding current housing and community development needs, and prioritizing resources to address those needs. The City's Citizen Participation Plan is designed to provide citizens of all ages, genders, economic levels, races, ethnicities, and special needs equal access to become involved each year. This document serves as the City's Citizen Participation Plan for 2012 and all subsequent program years through June 30, 2017. This Citizen Participation Plan was drafted in accordance with Sections 91.100 and 91.105 of HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations. 11PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA GLOSSARY OF RELEVANT TERMS Action Plan: The yearly plan of action for the Consolidated Plan that identifies the specific activities and projects to be undertaken with CDBG during that funding/program year by the City. Analysis of Impediments (Al): The Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al) involves a comprehensive review and assessment of how the city's laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both public and private, affect fair housing choice. The City of Temecula is required to conduct an update to its Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice in conjunction with the updates to its Consolidated Plan. This analysis will identify the proposed fair housing actions to be taken during the lifespan (5 years) of the Consolidated Plan. CAPER: The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, as required by HUD regulations, reports the City's completion of projects and activities as outlined within the Action and Consolidated Plans and the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) at the end of the program year. CDBG: The Community Development Block Grant Program, as established under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383, and the funding received under such program, assists communities to address housing and community development needs, primarily for low and moderate income residents. Consolidated Plan: A three to five multi-year plan of the City's housing and community development needs, resources, priorities, and proposed activities to be undertaken for the CDBG program. Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG): ESG is a HUD grant for the rehabilitation or conversion of buildings into homeless shelters. It also funds certain related social services, operating expenses, homeless prevention activities, and administrative costs. ESG supplements State, local, and private efforts to improve the quality and number of emergency homeless shelters. By funding emergency shelter and related social services, ESG provides a foundation for homeless people to begin moving to independent living. HOME: The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, as established by the Cranston -Gonzalez National Affordable Act of 1990, is designed to provide communities with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the creation of affordable housing opportunities through partnerships with other organizations. Low and Moderate Income Areas (LMA): The Low and Moderate Income Areas are typically areas where 51% of the residents are low or moderate income. However, since the City of Temecula is considered an Exception Community, Low and Moderate Income Areas are defined block group areas with the highest 25% (upper quartile) of the low and moderate income residents. This means, based upon Temecula's currently defined block group areas, Low and Moderate Income Areas are areas where 35% of the residents are low or moderate income persons. 21PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA The LMA benefit category is the most commonly used national objective for activities that benefit a low and moderate income block group area. Attached as Appendix A is a map that shows the boundaries of the City of Temecula eligible Low and Moderate Income Block Group areas. Activities that benefit the residents within the Low and Moderate Income Area are the type of activities that may qualify for the purposes of meeting a national objective. Examples of area benefit activities may include the following: •Acquisition of land to be used as a neighborhood park; •Construction of a health clinic; •Improvements to public infrastructure like the installation of gutters and sidewalks; and •Development of a community center or community gymnasium. Low and Moderate Limited Clientele Benefit (LMC): LMC activities provide benefits to a group of low or moderate income persons regardless of where they live; as opposed to LMA activities benefitting all the residents of a particular low and moderate area. In contrast to the Low and Moderate Area (LMA) benefit category, it is not the concentration of low to moderate persons living within the service area of the activity that determines whether the activity will qualify or not, but rather the actual number of Low and Moderate Income (LMI) persons that benefit from the activity. LMC activities benefit a limited clientele of whom at least 51 % are low or moderate incomes. Activities in this category provide benefits to specific groups of low and moderate income persons rather than everyone in an area. It may benefit particular persons without regard to their residence, or it may be an activity that provides a benefit to only particular persons within a specific area. Examples of activities that qualify under the limited clientele category include: •Acquisition of a building to be converted into a shelter for the homeless; •Rehabilitation of a center for training severely disabled persons to enable them to live independently; •Clearance of a structure from the future site of a neighborhood center that will exclusively serve the elderly; and •Public services activities (i.e., the provision of health services); and •Construction of a community recreational park or gymnasium serving the low to moderate Income residents. Groups that automatically qualify under LMC criteria are generally presumed by HUD to be principally low to moderate income persons as follows: •Abused children; •Elderly persons (age 62 and older); •Battered spouses; •Homeless persons; •Severely disabled adults; •Illiterate adults; •Persons living with AIDS; and •Migrant farm workers. Severely Disabled Adults: As defined by the Bureau of Census, persons are classified as having a severe disability if they: (a) used a wheelchair or had used another special aid for 6 months or longer; (b) were unable to perform one or more functional activities or needed assistance with an activity of daily living or instrumental activity of daily living; (c) were prevented from working at a job or doing housework; or (d) had a condition including autism, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer's disease, senility, or mental retardation. Finally persons who are under 65 years of age and who are covered by Medicare or receive Social Security are considered to have a disability (and a severe disability). Functional activities include seeing, hearing, having one's 3 P A G E CITY OF TEMECULA speech understood, lifting and carrying, walking up a flight of stairs, and walking. Activities of daily living include getting around inside the house, getting in and out of bed or a chair, bathing, dressing, eating, and toileting. Instrumental activities of daily living include going outside the home, keeping track of money or bills, preparing meals, doing Tight housework, and using the telephone. CONSOLIDATED PLAN OF PROGRAMS The Consolidated Plan is a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement for a city to receive federal housing and community development funding (CDBG funding). The Consolidated Plan report examines the housing and community development needs of a city, sets priorities for HUD grant monies to which a city is entitled, identifies the city's performance in meeting its goals, and establishes a strategic plan for meeting current and future needs. The City of Temecula is in the process of preparing its first multi-year Consolidated Plan as an "Entitlement Community" covering the program years July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2017. The City of Temecula multi-year Consolidated Plan covers the geographic area within the City limits of Temecula. The City is entitled to receive CDBG funding from HUD during its five program years beginning July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2017. Each program year coincides with the City's fiscal year of July 1st to June 30th. The City's Consolidated Plan is also required to have a strategy for citizen participation in the consolidated planning process. The citizen participation strategy is outlined in this document, the Citizen Participation Plan, which details the City's plan for soliciting and receiving citizen input during preparation of the Consolidated Plan. A public hearing to discuss and adopt this document, the City of Temecula's proposed Citizen Participation Plan, will be held on November 1, 2011 at 7 p.m. at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The City of Temecula consolidated planning processes will offer many opportunities for citizen participation. Participation will be solicited and encouraged through community outreach meetings, City Council public hearings and public Finance Committee meetings. The City will particularly encourage participation of persons with special needs and/or persons who are often underrepresented in public process (i.e. low income, non-English speaking persons, minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons who are homeless). A minimum of two public hearings, and two or three community meetings, will be held before submittal of the draft Consolidated Plan (or the Annual Plan) to HUD. It is anticipated that one or two optional Finance Committee meetings open to the public may also be held annually. The first public hearing is held in September, October or November each year. Citizen Input will also include two or three community meetings in October, November or December, and conclude with a final public hearing in April, May or June to adopt the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan. The public hearings will take place at the City of Temecula Civic Center, Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California, 92590, a location which is accessible to persons with physical disabilities. The community outreach meetings will also take place at the City of Temecula Civic Center at one of the available meeting rooms. 41PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA Citizen Participation Opportunities - Relevant Public Hearings and Meetings: All sites selected for public meetings and public hearings are accessible to the physically disabled. The City will provide a Spanish translator upon request to accommodate non-English speaking persons at public hearings or community meetings. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. These requests should be made to the Community Development Department at 951-694-6400. Multiple processes will be used to inform citizens, local government officials, advocates, housing and community development officials, and others about the City Council public hearings and community meetings. Citizens will be given at least 15 days' advance notice of the City Council public hearings and community meetings through postings on the City website (www.cityoftemecula.org), postings at public places including the City of Temecula Public Library and City of Temecula Civic Center, email notifications (interested parties' email addresses will be added to Appendix B as they are obtained), personal contact with agencies and advocates, and publications in a local newspaper of general circulation (The Press Enterprise or The Californian). The City will also distribute public notices to residents through property landlords or directly to residents living within existing, designated low income areas and neighborhoods throughout the City to inform residents about the public hearings as an effort to increase public participation. The City will also send notifications to all interested parties and individuals listed on Appendix B. •Community Meetings: Two or three community meetings will be held annually during the months of October, November and/or December conducted by City staff to gather public input about the housing and community development needs of citizens and their neighborhoods and to provide technical assistance on CDBG applications. The community meetings will provide an opportunity for citizens and interested parties to obtain information about the City's housing and community development programs and eligibility requirements. One of the community meetings during these months will be dedicated to potential stakeholders that may be eligible for funding of service programs and City staff will be available at the meetings to provide technical assistance for developing funding proposals for the programs covered by the Consolidated Plan. At least one community meeting will be held in early evenings to accommodate work schedules and at least one community meeting will be held during daylight to accommodate those uncomfortable driving at night. The location for these meetings will be at the City of Temecula Civic Center (at one of its available meeting rooms) which is within a low and moderate income area (LMA) of the City. Type of Meeting Community Meetings Date October, November and/or December Location Address City of Temecula Civic Center (Available Meeting Room) 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA •City Council Public Hearings: The City Council will fulfill its required role by holding public hearings and carrying out the procedures established in this Citizen Participation Plan. The City Council makes the final determination about the priority of various community needs that will guide the Council each year when allocating CBDG funds in the annual Action Plan. SIPAGE CITY OF TEMECULA The first public hearing will be held during the months of September, October or November each year prior to drafting and releasing the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. A final public hearing will be held after the release of the Draft Consolidated Plan and/or yearly Action Plan during the months of April, May or June. The Citizen Participation Plan provides for at least two public hearings; however, additional public hearings may be necessary if the City is needs to, for example, address a substantial amendment or obtain additional citizens' views, respond to proposals and questions, address housing or community development needs, development of proposed activities and/or review the program performance. A minimum of two public hearings is required. Type of Meeting Date Public Hearing September, October and/or November Public Hearing April, May and/or June Location City of Temecula Civic Center (Council Chambers) City of Temecula Civic Center (Council Chambers) Add ress 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA 41000 Main St. Temecula, CA The public will have the opportunity of reviewing the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan (and providing input to City Staff) within a 30 -day comment period during March and/or April each year. City staff will incorporate public comments submitted to City staff during the 30 -day comment period and then present the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Action Plan) for approval to the City Council at a public hearing in the months of April, May or June. Public comments and citizen participation are encouraged during all public hearings each year. .City Finance Committee: It is anticipated (but optional to the City) that the Finance Committee may meet one to three times a year regarding CDBG. The public will be noticed and such meetings would provide additional opportunities for the public to participate. The City Finance Committee consists of two appointed City Council Members (the two appointed Council Members are selected by City Council vote each calendar year or as may be determined at any other City Council meeting). The Finance Committee meets as needed and performs in an advisory manner to City staff and to the City Council concerning City Finance issues which may also include CDBG funding as a topic item on a City Finance Committee Agenda. Therefore, it is anticipated the Finance Committee would perform in an advisory manner to City staff and to the City Council concerning planning, implementing and assessing CDBG programs/activities through the following: • Consideration of citizen input concerning neighborhood/community needs; • Project recommendations for the City Council's approval; and • Review of project/program progress. This meeting is intended more as an internal City meeting concerning CDBG however offers the public a supplemental opportunity to participate and the public is invited to attend. The anticipated timing of these City Finance Committee meetings that would have a CDBG topic item on the Agenda is expected to occur within 45 days before City Council CDBG public hearings and/or in January or February during City staff review of all CDBG service applications for funding requests that were submitted to the City. In the event Staff proposes a Substantial Amendment to the any of the CDBG plans, then a Finance Committee meeting may be scheduled to provide a status to the Finance Subcommittee before proposing a Substantial Amendment at a City Council Public Hearing. The public will be notified of any Finance Committee meetings in a manner that exceeds the City's standard noticing requirements for standing Committees (3 -days' advance public notice) when CDBG is a topic item on the agenda. If CDBG is an item on the agenda for a Finance Committee meeting, then a minimum of 10 days' advance notice (rather than the City's 6 P A G E CITY OF TEMECULA standard 3 days' advance notice for standing Committee meetings) shall be required and the Public Notice shall specify that CDBG will be a discussion item. Ten days' public notice shall be through publication in at least one local newspaper (The Press Enterprise or The Californian) and through notices posted at public areas including City Civic Center and the City of Temecula Public Library, and on the City's website at www.cityoftemecula.orq. Citizen Participation Opportunities - Relevant Plans: The City will make every effort to involve the community, especially lower income persons or special needs, during the preparation of all relevant HUD plans including the Citizen Participation Plan, the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and the CAPER. The City will also seek input from other groups that might not be eligible for funding but may have tenants or employees, or are aware of charitable organizations interested in participating. Appendix B provides a list of groups that will be invited to participate in the public process. The City will maintain the list and verify the contact information periodically and, at a minimum, annually. The list will continue to evolve and be administratively modified each year, without a substantial amendment, as stakeholders or potential participants are identified or dissolved. Organizations or groups and persons interested in registering to be on the list may contact the City of Temecula Community Development Department at 951-694-6400 to make the request to be added to the CDBG contact list. •Citizen Participation Pian: The draft Citizen Participation Plan will be released for public review and comment for 15 days in October or November and posted on the City's website at http://www.citvoftemecula.orq. A public hearing to present, discuss and adopt the Citizen Participation Plan will be held in November. This Citizen Participation Plan will be in effect through June 30, 2017. In the event there are substantial amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan during the five-year consolidated plan period, a public comment period of at least 15 days will be provided. Key housing and community development organizations in the City listed on Appendix B will be notified of the 15 -day comment period for this Citizen Participation Plan and, if necessary, any substantially amended Citizen Participation Plan in the future. This Citizen Participation Plan will be made available in a format accessible to persons with disabilities upon request. •Consolidated Pian / Action Plan: Prior to the adoption of a Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan), the City will make available to the public and all interested parties the draft Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan for a comment period of no less than 30 days. The public comment period will commence in March, April or May each year. City Staff will then include public comments into the Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) prior to the public hearing on the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) by City Council. The draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) will contain the amount of assistance the City expects to receive through the CDBG and the activities that are planned each year during the five-year consolidated planning period. The draft Consolidated Plan will also include the City's policies related to displacement of low and moderate income individuals, reducing poverty, removal of lead-based paint hazards, preventing and mitigating homelessness and removing barriers to fair housing choice. The City does not anticipate any displacement of individuals under the Consolidated Plan and the City's "anti -displacement plan," as part of the Consolidated Plan, will describe how the City will minimize displacement of persons or, in the unanticipated event of displacement, how the City will assist any persons who are actually displaced as a result of the use of these funds, specifying the type and levels of assistance and amount of compensation. An 7 P A G E CITY OF TEMECULA Appendix to the draft Consolidated Plan will also include the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Al) which involves a comprehensive review and assessment of how the city's laws, regulations, policies and procedures affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing, and how conditions, both public and private, affect fair housing choice. The entire proposed Consolidated Plan will be available at the City Hall and the City Library during the public comment period. The proposed Consolidated Plan will also be available for viewing on the City's website, http://www.citvoftemecula.orq. Hard copies of the Consolidated Plan will be available to the public upon request. Annual Action Plans will likewise be made available. Citizens or groups that have attended any of the community meetings or public hearings will be added to Appendix B and notified when the draft Consolidated Plan (and/or Annual Action Plan) is available for comment. Any person or organization may be added to Appendix B (or deleted) upon request to the Community Development Department at 951-694-6400. The City will openly consider any comments of individuals or groups received in writing during the process of drafting the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan including at public hearings or meetings. A summary of the written and public hearing comments will be included in the final Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan, along with the City's response to the comments. Please note however that copies of the complaints, along with the City's response will be sent to HUD if they occur outside of the Consolidated Planning and/or Annual Action Planning process and, as such, may not appear in the Consolidated Plan. The City will provide a written response to all written citizen comments and complaints related to the Consolidated Plan, amendments, and the CAPER within 30 days of receiving the comments and complaints. •Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER): Before the City submits a Consolidated Plan Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) to HUD, the City will make available to interested parties the proposed CAPER for a comment period of no less than 15 days. Citizens will be notified of the CAPER's availability through publications in at least one local newspaper of general circulation within the City (The Press Enterprise or The Californian). Any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings in preparing the performance report will be considered when preparing the CAPER. A summary of these comments shall be attached to the performance report. The CAPER will be available for review at the City during the full public comment period. Hard copies of the Draft CAPER will be located at the City of Temecula public library, City Clerk's Office, Community Development Department, and on the City's website at http://www.citvoftemecula.org. 81PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA Citizen Participation Opportunities — Summary of Annual Schedule of Public Hearings and Meetings: The schedule for public participation and public review and adoption of all relevant plans including the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report is a follows: .City Council Public Hearing (September—November): Public Hearing on the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report CAPER (and/or Citizen Participation Plan if it is a Consolidated Plan year) by the City Council; with a 15 -day public review period for public review and comments. This hearing is intended to present the public with an overview of the CDBG funding priorities prior to drafting/adopting the Annual Action Plan. This will include an overview of allowed activities under the CDBG programs, as well as an overview of the previous year's Action Plan activities and projects for the City. •Community Meetings (October—December): Two or three community outreach meetings to gather input from the public on the overall proposed activities and programs to be completed as part of that year's Action Plan. •Finance Committee Meetings (January—April; August—November): It is anticipated (but not required) that the Finance Committee may review existing and potential programs and projects funded with Community Development Block Grant funds prior to drafting and/or adopting the Consolidated Plan and/or Annual Action Plan. These meetings would be publically noticed and open to the public for input and participation. The timing of these meetings is expected to occur within 45 days before any City Council public hearings regarding CDBG and/or in January or February to review all CDBG service applications for funding requests that were submitted to the City. •City Council Public Hearing (March -June): Public Hearing on the Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan by the City Council; with a 30 -day public review period for public review and comments. The public hearing provides an opportunity for public input before the City Council adopts the proposed Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan. •HUD Submittal (May -June): Submittal of the Consolidated and/or Annual Action Plan to Department of Housing and Urban Development. Each year, the annual schedule and locations for community hearings and meetings for public input will be posted on the City's website at www.cityoftemecula.orq by September 15`". PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS The City shall provide opportunities for residents, public agencies, and other interested parties, including those most affected, with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the jurisdiction's consolidated plan, as well as the proposed, actual, and past use of funds covered by this Citizen Participation Plan. Standard documents will be available for public review at the City of Temecula, Community Development Department, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92592. These materials will also be available in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request. Comments, questions, or suggested amendments should be directed to the Community Development Department at (951) 694-6400. Standard program documents that shall be made accessible for public review and comment throughout the preparation process include: the proposed and final Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, Consolidated Annual Performance Report (CAPER), Substantial Amendments, and this Citizen Participation Plan. The City will maintain and provide access to documentation and records for a period of five (5) years. 9 P A G E CITY OF TEMECULA CONSULTATION WITH ORGANIZATIONS AND CITY AGENCIES When preparing the Consolidated Plan, the City will actively consult with public and private agencies that provide housing, health, and social services in order to ensure that the interests and needs of all groups are being adequately addressed. The City will also make the Consolidated Plan available to surrounding units of local government including local housing authorities. This consultation will occur through the community meetings, consultation or interviews conducted with such organizations including those that provide services to special needs populations and incorporation of data and reports produced by such organizations into the Consolidated Plan. The City will develop a list of these organizations and agencies and add them to Appendix B. COMPLAINTS Residents or other interested parties may submit complaints to the City in relation to administration of the CDBG programs or plans. Complaints may be made via telephone by calling (951) 694-6400 or in writing to: Community Development Department/CDBG, City of Temecula, 41000 Main St., Temecula, CA 92589. The complaining party should state the nature of the complaint, what prior efforts have been made to resolve the problem and any other pertinent information which would help staff determine a solution. All complaints will receive careful consideration and a timely, substantive response will be provided within fifteen (15) days where practicable but no less than thirty (30) working days. SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS Occasionally, public comments warrant an amendment to the Consolidated Plan. The criteria for whether to amend are referred to by HUD as "Substantial Amendment Criteria." A change in the Annual Action Plan will be considered substantial whenever costs increase by $50,000 or 25% of the project's budget, whichever is greater. It would constitute a substantial change if a proposal is made to amend the description of an existing activity in such a way that the newly described purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries differ significantly from the original activity's purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries, The addition or deletion of an activity would also constitute a substantial change except in the following cases: (1) if the additional activity were on the back up priority list approved by the City Council; (2) if the activity were being deleted due to delays and would be included in the following year's Annual Action Plan; (3) if there are nonperformance or eligibility issues requiring activity termination; (4) if project deletion or funding reductions are due to facility closure or bankruptcy; (5) if the agency becomes disqualified or ineligible to receive funding or is unable to produce sufficient eligible billings in accordance with the provisions of the agreement; or (6) if an applicant requests that their activity be terminated. Reallocation of funds allocated to an activity in the Action Plan to other activities of equal or lesser priority need level as a result of a federal government recession or changes of appropriated funds that the City makes an administrative decision not to fund one or more activities are not considered to be Substantial Amendments. If such federal government funding cuts or changes were to happen, the City would be required to follow its plan of action as outlined in the Consolidated Plan and/or the annual Action Plan. Modifications to appendixes in the plans are not considered to be a Substantial Amendment. 101 PACE CITY OF TEMECULA Citizen participation in the Event of a Substantial Amendment: In the event of a substantial amendment to the Consolidated Plan, the City will conduct at least one public hearing. This hearing will be held after a comment period of no less than 30 days, where the proposed, substantially amended Consolidated Plan will be made available to interested parties. Citizens will be informed of the public hearing through newspaper notification prior to the hearing, and the notice will appear in at least one newspaper. The substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be available for review at the City during the full public comment period. In addition, the substantially amended sections of the Consolidated Plan will be made available on the City's website, http://www.cityoftemecula.org, for the full duration of the public comment period. Consideration of Public Comments on Substantially Amended Plan: In the event of substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan, the City will openly consider any comments on the substantially amended Consolidated Plan from individuals or groups. Comments must be received in writing, including emails, or verbally during public hearings. A summary of the written and public hearing comments on the substantial amendments will be included in the Final Consolidated Plan. Also included in the Final Consolidated Plan will be a summary of all comments not accepted and their reasons for dismissal. 11 PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA 121PAGE Appendix A City of Temecula Map of Low to Moderate Income Areas CITY OF TEMECULA City of Temecula Low to Moderate Income Census Block Groups * October 3, 2011 Legend Low Moderate Income 2000 Census Tract, Block Group Census Tract 432.10, Block Group 2 Census Tract 43.214, Block Group 2 Census Tract 432.15, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.16, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.19, Block Group 1 Census Tract 432.20, Block Group 1 City of Temecula - Highways - Major Streets 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles M�RRi�Tq OT SPRINGS Rp Census Tract 432.10 Block Group 2 G /V. ¢TE Census Tract 432.16 Block Group 1 pTA HOT 1lNGS RD SERENA WY BUCK RD PLN ER Census Tract 432.15 z Block Group 1 4,4 D * Low/moderate income block group is defined as a block group with 51% or more low and moderate Income population. However, since Temecula is an exception community, its low/moderate income block group areas are defined as the top 25% of the block groups with the highest amount of low and moderate income residents. Source: HUD 2000 Census Low and Moderate Income Summary Data. Census Tract 432.14 Block Group 2 NZP Appendix B CDBG Notification List of Persons or Organizations Any person or organization may be added to this list (or deleted) upon request. Please contact Dana Weaver, Associate Planner Dana.WeaveraCityofTemecula.orq or 951-694-6400 Nonprofit Organizations, Public/Private Organizations or Interested Persons RIVERSIDE AREA RAPE CRISIS CENTER 1845 Chicago Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF TEMECULA VALLEY 28720 Via Montezuma, Temecula, CA 92593 BOYS AND GIRLS CLUBS OF SOUTHWEST COUNTY, John Whann P.O. Box 892349, Temecula, CA 92589-2349 JohnW@bgcswc.org CASA COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY, INC. P.O. Box 3008, Indio, CA 92202-3008 SAFE ALTERNATIVES FOR EVERYONE, INC. 28910 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590-2829 SENIOR CITIZEN SERVICE CENTER 41538 Eastman Dr. # C, Murrieta, CA 92562 VINEYARD OF THE NEW WINE P.O. Box 218, Temecula, CA 92593 TEMECULA MURRIETA RESCUE MISSION 31300 Rancho Community Way, Temecula, CA 92592 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula CA 92592 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 26790 Ynez Ct # A, Temecula CA 92591-5607 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST CALIFORNIA P.O. Box 1388 Temecula CA 92593-1388 TEMECULA MURRIETA PANTRY 28922 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3933 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501 13 !PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA SINGLE MOTHERS UNITED IN REWARDING FELLOWSHIP (SMURF), Paul Kauffman 31805 Temecula Parkway Ste 389, Temecula, CA 92592 Paul@smurfmom.com TEMECULA MURRIETA PANTRY 28922 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 GRID ALTERNATIVES 1257 Columbia Ave Ste D5, Riverside, CA 92507 ZAK SCHWANK zakschwank@gmail.com MARY TOWELL MaryTowell@yahoo.com MVM NETWORK INC., Nick Benavides Nick@mvmnetwork.org MVM NETWORK INC., Eric Moore Eric@mvmnetwork.org BOYS & GIRLS CLUB, Tornell McColley TorneliM@becswc.org BOYS & GIRLS CLUB, D. Joy Gould joyg@becswc.org COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY EDUCATION, Julie Zimmerman MicheleSmithsccg@verizon.net WELLS FARGO, Mark Stringer Mark.Stringer@wellsfargo.com PAUL JACOBS temeculaPaul@aol.com 14 ( P A G E CITY OF TEMECULA Appendix B Affordable Rental Housing Rancho Creek Apts. 28464 Felix Valdez, Temecula, CA 92590 Rancho West Apts. 42200 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Mission Village Apts. 28485 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Riverbank Senior Apts. 28500 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) 41925 Fifth Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 41955 Fifth Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Temecula Reflections 31111 Black Maple Dr., Temecula, CA 92592 Summerhouse 44155 Margarita Rd., Temecula, CA 92592 Warehouse at Creekside 42081 Third Street, Temecula, CA 92590 Oaktree Apts. 42176 Lyndie Lane, Temecula, CA 92591 Rancho California Apts. 29210 Stonewood Rd. , Temecula, CA 92591 Creekside Apts. 28955 Pujol Street, Temecula, CA 92590 151PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA Appendix B Affordable Housing Developers Coachella Valley Housing Coalition 45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G Indio, CA 92201 (760) 347-3157 Habitat for Humanity 27475 Ynez Road, Suite 390 Temecula, CA 92592 951-296-3362 Jamboree Housing 17701 Cowan Ave., Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 263-8676 The Olson Company 30200 Old Ranch Pkwy, #250 Seal Beach, CA 90740 (562) 596-4770 BRIDGE Housing 2202 30th Street San Diego, CA 92104-5427 (619) 231-6300 Affirmed Housing 13520 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92128 (858) 679-2828 161 PAGE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY OlE TEMEC A COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) Notice is hereby given that a Community Meeting will be held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California on November 16, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. (This is the same meeting information offered at two different times). This meeting is for the purpose of discussing the City's CDBG program and funding. Citizen input regarding community development and housing needs for the City of Temecula are encouraged at this time and will be considered in the development of CDBG activities for the City's Five -Year CDBG Consolidated Plan 2012-2016 and the City's One -Year Action Plan for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012. Projects supported with CDBG funds must meet at least one of the following three National Objectives: (1) benefit low and moderate income persons, (2) prevent or eliminate slums and blight, or (3) meet a particularly urgent community development need. All interested citizens are invited to attend. Please direct any questions to Betsy Lowrey, Planner, City of Temecula, telephone: 951-693-3959, or by email at Betsy.Lowrev@CitvofTemecula.orq. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request to Betsy Lowrey one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. More information can be obtained at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Finance/GrantAdministration.htm. CITY OlE TEMEC A COMMUNITY MEETING NOTICE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) Notice is hereby given that a Community Meeting will be held at the City of Temecula Conference Center at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California on November 17, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. This meeting is for the purpose of discussing the CDBG funding for fiscal year 2012-2013 to provide technical assistance to non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies that will be submitting an application requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. Applications can be obtained at http://www.cityoftemecula.org/Temecula/Government/Finance/GrantAdministration.htm. Please direct any questions to Betsy Lowrey, Planner, City of Temecula, telephone: 951-693-3959, or by email at Betsv.LowrevaCitvofTemecula.ora. Persons needing special accommodations or a translator should make their request to Betsy Lowrey one week before the meeting so the City can assure the special needs are met. What Do You Think? What are the City's most critical community development needs? What do you consider to be the City's most critical housing needs? What can the City do to improve housing opportunities and community development? Do you have any housing discrimination concerns? � 1. The City of Temecula Wants Your Input! Complete a survey online: Residents https://.surveymonkey.com/s/Temecula Resident_ Housing Survey Housing, real estate, lending and social service professionals https://.surveymonkey.com/s/Temecula Professional_ Housing Survey The City of Temecula needs your input about how to spend the federal housing and community development funds the City will receive during the next five years (2012-2017). Programs and services must gen- erally benefit low and moderate income persons. The City is starting its Consolidated Plan process, which will determine how the federal funds will be spent. Citizen participation is a vital step in determining the City's needs and priorities. Other questions or needs? For more information about the Consolidated Plan process, please contact: Betsy Lowrey City of Temecula Community Development Department PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589 951-693-3959 or betsy.lowrey@cityofTemecula.org B B RESEARCH & CONSULTING 3773 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 850 Denver, Colorado 80209-3868 303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448 www.bbcresearch.com bbc@bbcresearch.com MEMORANDUM To: Betsy Lowrey, Luke Watson From: Heidi Aggeler and Jen Garner Re: Draft Public Input Session Plan Date November 3, 2011 Background The forums will open to the public and stakeholders. Discussion will be focused on prioritizing needs for CDBG expenditures and fair housing. Session Format Each session will include the following elements: • Brief introductory presentation by BBC explaining the Consolidated Planning process, meeting objectives and an overview of how Temecula has spent housing and community development funds in the past (city can be part of this as well, depending on preferences) [BBC/City], and the anticipated funding level; • Warm up group discussion of the participants' perceptions of the quality of life in the low/mod neighborhoods — challenges, strengths [BBC] • Group discussion of the greatest housing needs in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; • Group discussion of the greatest community development needs in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; • Group discussion of the greatest needs of special needs populations in the low/mod neighborhoods [BBC]; • Spending and prioritization exercise [BBC]; • Iftime allows, we will introduce Fair Housing and the AI and discuss [Note: fair housing information will primarily be collected via the surveys in interviews]; and • Wrap-up [BBC/City]. Page 2 Group Discussion Sample Questions The purpose of the group discussion is to get participants warmed up and thinking about housing and community development needs in Temecula's low/mod neighborhoods. Questions may include: • How would you describe these [low/mod] neighborhoods to someone who didn't live in Temecula? • How does the quality of life in these neighborhoods compare to the rest of Temecula? • Do these neighborhoods have the same types of amenities as other Temecula neighborhoods? [parks, schools, sidewalks, street lighting] • What do you think are the greatest needs regarding housing in these neighborhoods? [more affordable housing, type of housing] • [Show examples of community development projects/services on a slide.] When you think about community development activities and services like those on the screen, what do you think the greatest needs are in these neighborhoods? • [Show list of special needs populations: youth, seniors, persons with disabilities, persons who are homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with HIV/AIDS] What are the greatest needs of special needs populations in Temecula? Spending and Prioritization Exercise After the discussion of needs, participants will be given a handout that directs them to spend $400,000 on eligible activities of their choosing and to assign a priority (high, medium, low) to each activity. Wrap -Up Upon completion of the prioritization exercise, the floor will be opened for any additional comments about housing and community development needs and the Consolidated Plan process. Participants will be given the opportunity to make additional written comments on a comment sheet handout. Materials Needed The following materials are needed: • Screen, projector and laptop for presentation[City] • Large format maps highlighting the qualified low and moderate income neighborhoods (at least two) [City] • Post-It/sticky flip charts and markers [City] • Project prioritization worksheets [BBC] Page 3 • Sign in sheets [BBC] • Flyers promoting the resident and stakeholder survey [BBC] • Paper copies of the resident and stakeholder surveys with return envelopes [BBC] • Public comment sheets [BBC] APPENDIX B. CDBG Service Application City Community Community Development Application 20U-2013 Submission December of Temecula Development Department I, rvr', n , 40, 64t 19x9 { Orly°'‘S•Vewow Block Grant (CDBG) for the Program Year Deadline 15, 2011 5:00 P.M. City of Temecula 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant Application Instructions The following CDBG Application is to be used for the City of Temecula 2012-2013 CDBG Program Year. This application form is intended for the use by non-profit organizations [501(c)(3)] and government agencies that will be requesting CDBG funds from the City of Temecula. The City of Temecula's 2012-2013 CDBG funds will not be available until after September 15, 2012. The original and one copy (total of two hard copies) of the complete 2012-2013 CDBG Application and an electronic copy of the application and all attachments in PDF format* are due no later than 5:00 PM on Thursday, December 15, 2011, at the following location: City of Temecula ATTN: David Bilby, Senior Debt Analyst 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 (951) 308-6342 *You may email the PDF copy of your full application to David.Bilby@CityofTemecula.org, or provide a CD or Flash Drive when you submit the original and copy. Please contact David Bilby if you are unable to provide a PDF of your application. Applications received after the above deadline will not be accepted. A complete application for each activity or project must be submitted by all organizations applying for CDBG funds. All questions must be answered completely, and all required documentation must be attached. If additional sheets are required to complete a response, please continue the answer as an attachment. Attachments to the Application: All applicants must submit a detailed index of all attachments to the CDBG application. All attachments must be individually tabbed and labeled to correspond to the specific section of the application. Non-profit organizations are only required to submit one copy of their Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and current board membership. Should you require any assistance in completing the application, please attend the Technical Assistance Workshop: Technical Assistance Workshop November 17, 2011 6:00 p.m. City of Temecula City Hall Conference Center 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 If you are unable to attend the Technical Assistance Workshop, you may also contact a CDBG representative at (951) 694-6400 and ask for Dana Weaver, Luke Watson, Betsy Lowrey or David Bilby for assistance completing the application. 1 2012-2013 CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW At this time, the City of Temecula will utilize a Priority Evaluation and Project Rating System for all proposals. As part of the review and evaluation process, City staff will review and evaluate all proposals utilizing the following checklist: I. ACTIVITY EVALUATION ❑ Does the activity address an established need? ❑ Is the proposed activity eligible (24 CFR 570.201) under the CDBG program? ❑ Does the proposed activity meet one of the three broad National Objectives? • Principally benefit low and moderate-income persons; • Prevents or eliminates slum and blight; or • Addresses an urgent need or problem in the community. ❑ Has the applicant provided sufficient explanation concerning their ability to adequately and accurately document the benefit to low and moderate income persons? ❑ Can the project be implemented and completed within a reasonable amount of time (Public Service activities 1 year / all other activities 2 years maximum)? ❑ Has the applicant identified all the major tasks or components that will be required in carrying out the activity? Are there any potential issues or concerns? ❑ Has the applicant provided a reasonable estimate of the resources necessary for each component of the project, and has it developed a realistic budget that reflects these resources? Are other sources of funds (leveraging) committed to this project? ❑ Is the proposed budget for the CDBG-funded activity separate from other activities undertaken by the applicant? II. APPLICANT (ORGANIZATIONAL) EVALUATION ❑ Has the applicant ever undertaken the proposed activity before? What were the results? ❑ Does the applicant have experience with CDBG or other Federal programs? Has the applicant conducted a Single Audit (OMB A-133) within the last two years? ❑ Does the applicant and prospective staff understand the additional requirements associated with Federal funding? ❑ Does the applicant have qualified staff for all the necessary functions associated with the proposed activity? Is there adequate staff time available? ❑ Does the applicant possess adequate administrative structures, management systems, and policies & procedures? ❑ Does the applicant possess adequate financial stability? Will the applicant be overly dependent upon CDBG funding? 2 Minimum Activity Funding: In an effort to ensure effective, efficient, and appropriate allocation and use of CBDG funds, the City may reject any proposed CDBG activity in an amount less than $10,000. Leverage Funding: Verification of at least FIVE percent matching funds must be provided prior to the date of the grant awarded to the grantee. Funds used to match a previous CDBG grant may not be used to match a subsequent grant award. Applications with zero leverage will be disqualified. Leverage may include, but limited to Federal, State, local, private, donations, in-kind, volunteer hours at $5.00 hour, etc. Acquisition of Real Property / Displacement: NOTE: Any organization considering the submittal of an application for CDBG funds for a project that involves acquisition of real property and/or the displacement of tenants must consult with the City prior to submitting the application. 3 CITY USE ONLY PROPOSAL NUMBER REVIEWER DOCUMENT STAMP DATE RECEIVED: CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 2012- 2013 APPLICATION FORM I. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applying Entity or Agency: Location: City: Zip Code: Mailing Address: City: Zip Code: Telephone Number: Fax Number: Executive Director: Telephone Number: E-mail: Program Manager: Telephone Number: E-mail: Address (If dferent from above: Grant Writer: Telephone Number: E-mail: II. ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY: (This is applicable only ifyou are a non-profit organiation) Date Organization founded: Date Organization incorporated as a non-profit organization: Identification Number: State Identification Number: DUNS Number: Number of paid staff: Number of volunteers: ATTACH: Current Board ofDirectors (Label as Attachment LA) Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws (Label as Attachment LB) 4 III. IV. PROJECT ACTIVITY: CDBG Funds Requested: $ (Total amount for the pr ject only) Where will the proposed activity occur (be specific as to the geographic scale of the proposed activity)? If the project involves a new or existing facility, what is the proposed service/benefit area for the facility? (Attachment II Project Activity) I 1 Citywide (check if project will serve multiple areas of the city). Community (ie s): Other: What area of the City does the activity occur within? NO1 E: The City avill make the final determination of the appropriate service area of all proposal& Check ONLY the applicable category your application represents. ❑I Real Property Acquisition Public Service Housing ❑I Rehabilitation/Preservation (please provide picture of structure) ❑I Public Facilities Improvements (construction) Other (provide description) 1 PROJECT NARRATIVE: A. Name of Project:1 Specific Location of Project (include street address; if a street address has not been assigned provideAPN) Street: I City: I Zip Code: I APN: I Attach maps of proposedpr ject(s) location and service area. B. Provide a detailed Project Description. The description should only address or discuss the specific activities, services, or project that is to be assisted with CDBG funds. If CDBG funds will assist the entire program or activity, then provide a description of the entire program or activity. (Attach additional sheets if necessary — Attachment Ill Project Description) I 5 C. D. Provide a detailed description of the proposed use of the CDBG funds only (e.g. client scholarships, purchase a specific piece of equipment, rent, supplies, utilities, salaries, etc.): I Outcomes and Performance Measures Number of clients or units of service to be provided using CDBG funds during the term of the grant: I NOTE: This is based on the expected number of clients to be served if the City funds your pr ject for the requested amount. Length of CDBG-funded activities or service (weeks, months, year): I Unduplicated number of clients/persons projected to serve (e.g., 25 clients, 50 seniors): I Units of service (Example: 25 clients x 10 visits = 250 units of service): I Service will be provided to (check one or more): I 1 Men 1 Women 1 Children 1 Men/Women Range of children's ages: I 1 Men/Women/Children 1 Families I❑I Seniors 1 Severely Disabled Adults I❑I Migrant Farm Workers I❑I Homeless Number of beds of facility: I Anticipated number of "new" beds: I Length of stay (if residential facility): I 6 E. F. G. H. What are the goals and objectives of the project, service, or activity? How will you measure and evaluate the success of the project to meet these goals and objectives (measures should be both qualitative and quantitative)? Discuss how this project directly benefits low- and moderate- income residents. Respond to A & B only if this application is for a public service project. (a) Is this a NEW service provided by your agency? Yes I❑I No 1 (b) If service is not new, will the existing public service activity level be substantially increased or improved? 1 What methods will be used for community involvement to assure that all who might benefit from the project are provided an opportunity to participate? 1 7 V. I. What evidence is there of a long-term commitment to the proposal? Describe how you plan to continue the work (project) after the CDBG funds are expended? I PROJECT BENEFIT: All CDBG-funded activities must meet at least one of three National Objectives of the CDBG program. Indicate the category of National Objective to be met by your activity: CATEGORY 1: Benefit to low -moderate income persons (must be documented). Please choose either subcategory A, B, or C. A. Area Benefit: The project or facility serves, or is available to, all persons located within the City's Low/Moderate Income Area. Please refer to the City's Low to Moderate Area Map attached as Exhibit A to the Citizen Participation Plan. If you need assistance in determining the appropriate census data, please call the City. Census Tract and block group numbers: CTI BG I CTI BG I CTI BG I CTI BG I CTI BG ] CTI BG I # Total population in Census Tract(s) / block group(s) I # Total low -moderate population in Census Tract(s) / block group(s) I B. Limited Clientele: The project serves clientele that will provide documentation of their family size, income, and ethnicity. Identify the procedure you currently have in place to document that at least 51% of the clientele you serve are low -moderate income persons. I 8 C. Clientele presumed to be principally low- and moderate -income persons: The following groups are presumed by HUD to meet this criterion. You will be required to submit a certification from the client (s) that they fall into one of the following presumed categories. The activity will benefit (check one or more) I❑I Abused children Homeless persons ❑I Battered spouses Illiterate adults I❑I Elderly persons I❑I Persons living with AIDS I❑I Severely disabled adults I❑I Migrant Farm workers Describe your clientele to be served by the activity. I I CATEGORY 2: Prevention or Elimination of Slums and Blight: The proposed project or activity must directly benefit an identified slum and blighted area. Is the project located in a Redevelopment Area? Yes I❑I No I❑I If yes, attach map of the area with the site highlighted, and provide the Redevelopment Project Area (excerpts accepted) which documents the existence of slum/blight. Also, document the specific redevelopment objectives pertaining to the proposed project. (Label as Attachments: IV Category 2, Exhibit 1, 2, etc) NOTE: this National Objective Category must be approved by the City in writing prior to the submittal of your application. CATEGORY 3: Documented Health or Safety Condition of Particular Urgency: Condition shall have been of recent (18 months) origin and must be designated by the City Council. Provide documentation which demonstrates the health or safety condition has existed within the previous 18 months. (Label as Attachments: V Category 3, Exhibit 1, 2, etc.) NOTE: this National Objective Category must be approved by the City in writing prior to the submittal of your application. 9 VI. FINANCIAL INFORMATION: A. Proposed Project Budget Complete the following annual program budget to begin July 1, 2011. If your proposed CDBG-funded activity will start on a date other than July 1, 2011, please indicate starting date. If these budget line items are not applicable to your activity, please attach an appropriate budget. Provide total Budget information and distribution of CDBG funds in the proposed budget. The budgeted items are for the activity for which you are requesting CDBG funding - not for the budget of the entire organization or agency. (EXAMPLE: The Valley Senior Center is requesting funding of a new Senior Nutritional Program. The total cost of the program is $$15,000. A total of $$10,000 in CDBG funds is being requested for operating expenses associated with the proposed activity. Other non-CDBG funding will be used to pay pick-up the remaining costs for the program). TOTAL ACTIVITY/ PROJECT BUDGET CDBG FUNDS (Include CDBG Funds) REQUESTED I. Personnel A. Salaries & Wages $ I $ B. Fringe Benefits $.1 $ C. Consultants & Contract Services $ I $ SUB -TOTAL $ I $$ II. Non -Personnel A. Space Costs $ I $ B. Rental, Lease or Purchase of $ I $ Equipment C. Consumable Supplies $ I $ D. Travel $ I $ E. Telephone $ I $ F. Other Costs $d $ SUB -TOTAL $1 $$ III. Architectural/Engineering Design $ I $ IV. Acquisition of Real Property $ I $ V. Construction/Rehabilitation $ I $ VI. Indirect Costs $ I $ TOTAL $ [ $ 10 B. Leveraging Identify other funding sources (commitments or applications) from other sources to assist in the implementation this activity. Attach current evidence of commitment (Attachment VI -A, Exhibits 1, 2, etc). If commitments are pending, indicate amount requested and attach documentation regarding previous year's funding. Funding Source 1 Amount Requested Date Available Type of Commitment I I [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 C. Provide a summary by line item of your organization's previous year's income and expense statement (Attachment VI -B, Exhibits 1, 2, etc.. 1 D. If the project benefits residents outside the City's jurisdiction have requests been submitted to those other jurisdictions? Yes 1❑I No ❑I If yes, identify sources and indicate outcome. 1 If no, please explain 1 11 VII. E. Was this project previously funded with If yes, when? 1 Is this activity a continuation of a previously If yes, explain: MANAGEMENT CAPACITY: CDBG funds? Yes I No ❑1 funded (CDBG) project? Yes ❑I No ❑l in managing and operating project or activities funded within the description a resource list (partnerships) in of funds for the operation and maintenance of the A. Describe your organization's experience with CDBG or other Federal funds. Include addition to the source and commitment program. Source IL Activity Year 1 Allocation �m Amount Expended B. Management Systems Does your organization have written and adopted management systems (i.e., policies and procedures) including personnel, procurement, property management, record keeping, financial management, etc.? 12 C. Capacity Please provide the names and qualifications of the person(s) that will be primarily responsible for the implementation and completion of the proposed project. Provide a detailed organizational chart (Attachment VII -A, Exhibits 1, 2, etc). 1 1 D. Should the applying entity be awarded CDBG funds, please identify the primary project objectives and goals using an Estimated Timeline for Project Implementation: OBJECTIVE 1 START DATE COMPLETION DATE II I I II I I 13 APPLICATION CERTIFICATION Undersigned hereby certifies that (initial after reading each statement and sign the document): 1. The information contained in the project application is complete and accurate. 2. The applicant agrees to comply with all Federal and City policies and requirements imposed on the project funded in full or part by the CDBG program. 3. The applicant acknowledges that the Federal assistance made available through the CDBG program funding will not be used to substantially reduce prior levels of local, (NON-CDBG) financial support for community development activities. 4. The applicant fully understands that any facility built or equipment purchased with CDBG funds shall be maintained and/or operated for the approved use throughout its economic life. 5. If CDBG funds are approved, the applicant acknowledges that sufficient funds are available or will be available to complete the project as described within a reasonable timeframe. 6. On behalf of the applying organization, I have obtained authorization to submit this application for CDBG funding. (DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED Minute Action and/or written Board Approval signed by the Board President). DATE: Signature: Print Name/Title Authorized Representative: 1 14 Applicant's Check -list: The following required documents listed below have been attached. Any missing documentation to the application will be cause for the application to be reviewed as INELIGIBLE. Yes NO ATTACHMENT ❑ I❑ 1. Board of Directors ❑ I❑ 2. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws ❑ I❑ 3. Project Activity Map ❑ I❑ 4. Project Description ❑ I❑ 5. Project Benefit, Category 2. Slum Blight Documentation ❑I I❑ 6. Project Benefit, Category 3, Urgency ❑ I❑ 7. Leveraging ❑ I❑ 8. Income and Expense Statement ❑ I❑ 9. Management Capacity ❑ I❑ 10. Board Written Authorization approving submission of application 15 APPENDIX C. HUD Needs Tables and Required Forms CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections. Housing and Community Development Activities Needs Current Q ns C7 5 -Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative (.7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 D V Q 01 Acquisition of Real Property 570.201(a) 0 0 0 0 0 02 Disposition 570.201(b) 0 0 0 0 0 Public Facilities and Improvements 03 Public Facilities and Improvements (General) 570.201(c) 1 0 1 0 0 03A Senior Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03B Handicapped Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03C Homeless Facilities (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03D Youth Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03E Neighborhood Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03F Parks, Recreational Facilities 570.201(c) 2 0 2 0 0 03G Parking Facilities 570.201© 0 0 0 0 0 03H Solid Waste Disposal Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03I Flood Drain Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 033 Water/Sewer Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03K Street Improvements 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03L Sidewalks 570.201(c) 1 0 1 0 0 03M Child Care Centers 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03N Tree Planting 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 030 Fire Stations/Equipment 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03P Health Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03Q Abused and Neglected Children Facilities 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03R Asbestos Removal 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03S Facilities for AIDS Patients (not operating costs) 570.201(c) 0 0 0 0 0 03T Operating Costs of Homeless/AIDS Patients Programs 0 0 0 0 0 04 Clearance and Demolition 570.201(d) 0 0 0 0 0 04A Clean-up of Contaminated Sites 570.201(d) 0 0 0 0 0 Services 05 Public Services (General) 570.201(e) - Food, Emergency Servicf 2 0 2 0 0 05A Senior Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05B Handicapped Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05C Legal Services 570.201(E) 0 0 0 0 0 05D Youth Services 570.201(e) 2 0 2 0 0 05E Transportation Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05F Substance Abuse Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05G Battered and Abused Spouses 570.201(e) 1 0 1 0 0 05H Employment Training 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05I Crime Awareness 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 053 Fair Housing Activities (if CDBG, then subject to 570.201(e) 1 0 1 0 0 CommunityDev 1 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections. Housing and Community Development Activities Needs Current ) a ns C7 5 -Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative C7 V Q 0 C7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 V Q O C7 V Q 0 C7 V Q U 3 d05M 05K Tenant/Landlord Counseling 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05L Child Care Services 570.201(e) 2 0 2 0 0 Health Services 570.201(e) 1 0 1 0 0 05N Abused and Neglected Children 570.201(e) 1 0 1 0 0 050 Mental Health Services 570.201(e) 0 0 0 0 0 05P Screening for Lead -Based Paint/Lead Hazards Poison 570.201 0 0 0 0 0 05Q Subsistence Payments 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05R Homeownership Assistance (not direct) 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05S Rental Housing Subsidies (if HOME, not part of 5% 570.204 0 0 0 0 0 05T Security Deposits (if HOME, not part of 5% Admin c 0 0 0 0 0 06 Interim Assistance 570.201(f) 0 0 0 0 0 07 Urban Renewal Completion 570.201(h) 0 0 0 0 0 08 Relocation 570.201(1) 0 0 0 0 0 09 Loss of Rental Income 570.201(j) 0 0 0 0 0 10 Removal of Architectural Barriers 570.201(k) 0 0 0 0 0 11 Privately Owned Utilities 570.201(1) 0 0 0 0 0 12 Construction of Housing 570.201(m) 0 0 0 0 0 13 Direct Homeownership Assistance 570.201(n) 0 0 0 0 0 14A Rehab; Single -Unit Residential 570.202 - Solar Systems 1 0 1 0 0 14B Rehab; Multi -Unit Residential 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14C Public Housing Modernization 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14D Rehab; Other Publicly -Owned Residential Buildings 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14E Rehab; Publicly or Privately -Owned Commercial/Indu 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14F Energy Efficiency Improvements 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14G Acquisition - for Rehabilitation 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14H Rehabilitation Administration 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 14I Lead-Based/Lead Hazard Test/Abate 570.202 0 0 0 0 0 15 Code Enforcement 570.202(c) 0 0 0 0 0 16A Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 0 0 0 0 0 16B Non -Residential Historic Preservation 570.202(d) 0 0 0 0 0 17A CI Land Acquisition/Disposition 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17B CI Infrastructure Development 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17C CI Building Acquisition, Construction, Rehabilitat 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 17D Other Commercial/Industrial Improvements 570.203(a) 0 0 0 0 0 1SA ED Direct Financial Assistance to For -Profits 570.203(b 0 0 0 0 0 1813 ED Technical Assistance 570.203(b) 0 0 0 0 0 CommunityDev 2 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections. Housing and Community Development Activities Needs Current Q ns CD 5 -Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative CD V Q O CD V Q O CD V Q O CD V Q O CD V Q O CD D V Q 18C Micro -Enterprise Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 19A HOME Admin/Planning Costs of P3 (not part of 5% Ad 0 0 0 0 0 19B HOME CHDO Operating Costs (not part of 5% Admin ca 0 0 0 0 0 19C CDBG Non-profit Organization Capacity Building 0 0 0 0 0 19D CDBG Assistance to Institutes of Higher Education 0 0 0 0 0 19E CDBG Operation and Repair of Foreclosed Propert 0 0 0 0 0 19F Planned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 19G Unplanned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal 0 0 0 0 0 19H State CDBG Technical Assistance to Grantees 0 0 0 0 0 20 Planning 570.205 0 0 0 0 0 21A General Program Administration 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21B Indirect Costs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21D Fair Housing Activities (subject to 20% Admin cap) 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21E Submissions or Applications for Federal Programs 570.206 0 0 0 0 0 21F HOME Rental Subsidy Payments (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 21G HOME Security Deposits (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 21H HOME Admin/Planning Costs of P3 (subject to 5% cap 0 0 0 0 0 21I HOME CHDO Operating Expenses (subject to 5% cap) 0 0 0 0 0 22 Unprogrammed Funds 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 PWA 313 Facility based housing — development 0 0 0 0 0 31K Facility based housing - operations 0 0 0 0 0 31G Short term rent mortgage utility payments 0 0 0 0 0 31F Tenant based rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 31E Supportive service 0 0 0 0 0 31I Housing information services 0 0 0 0 0 31H Resource identification 0 0 0 0 0 31B Administration - grantee 0 0 0 0 0 31D Administration - project sponsor 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO ClAcquisition Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 CommunityDev 3 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Only complete blue sections. Housing and Community Development Activities Needs Current Q ns CD 5 -Year Quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Cumulative (.7Q V O (.7Q V O (.7Q V O (.7Q V O (.7Q V O (.7Q D V w EL 0 = Acquisition of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing rental units 0 0 0 0 0 Rental assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Acquisition of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Production of new owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Rehabilitation of existing owner units 0 0 0 0 0 Homeownership assistance 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 CommunityDev 4 CPMP Non -Homeless Special Needs Including HOPWA Needs Currently Available a 0 3-5 Year Quantities Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Year 5* o 0 c9 Complete T 0 Complete To 0 Complete To 0 (5 Complete To 0 (5 Complete To 0 c T3 i Q % of Goal IHousing Needed 52. Elderly 2245 0 2245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 53. Frail Elderly 896 0 896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 54. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness 318 0 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 55. Developmentally Disabled 553 0 553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 56. Physically Disabled 1774 0 1774 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 57. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted 1918 0 1918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 58. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their familiE\ 28 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 59. Public Housing Residents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### Total 7732 0 7732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### Supportive Services Needed 60. Elderly 1147 0 1147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 61. Frail Elderly 480 0 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 62. Persons w/ Severe Mental Illness 1011 0 1011 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 63. Developmentally Disabled 1251 0 1251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 64. Physically Disabled 809 0 809 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 65. Alcohol/Other Drug Addicted 7460 0 7460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 66. Persons w/ HIV/AIDS & their familie\ 124 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### 67. Public Housing Residents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #### Total 12282 0 12282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0#### Non Homeless 1 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Continuum of Care Homeless Population and Subpopulations Chart Part 1: Homeless Population Sheltered Un sheltered Total (Jurisdiction Emergency Transitional Data Quality (E) estimates 1. Homeless Individuals 0 0 148 148 • 2. Homeless Families with Children 0 0 4 4 2a. Persons in Homeless with Children Families 0 0 14 14 Total (lines 1 + 2a) 0 0 162 162 Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations Sheltered Un sheltered Total Data Quality (E) estimates 1. Chronically Homeless 0 66 66 2. Severely Mentally III 0 48 48 3. Chronic Substance Abuse 0 75 75 4. Veterans 0 23 23 5. Persons with HIV/AIDS 0 5 5 6. Victims of Domestic Violence 0 19 19 7. Youth (Under 18 years of age) Currently Available 0 3 3 Part 3: Homeless Needs Table: Individuals Need s 0 0fa 5 -Year Quantities Total Priority H, M, L r i. LL " c (. Fund Source: CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, ESG or Other Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 (.7 Complete (.7 Complete C7 Complete 0 Complete (.7 Complete 0 Q % of Goal Beds Emergency Shelters 148 0 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ### H Y CDBG Transitional Housing 66 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ### Permanent Supportive Housing 66 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### Total 280 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0### Chronically Homeless Homeless 1 CPMP Part 4: Homeless Needs Table: Families 0 m Emergency Shelters Transitional Housing Permanent Supportive Housing 14 19 0 0 n ro 14 19 5 -Year quantities Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total 0 0 0 Total 33 0 33 0 0 CD a) v o. E 0 V 0 0 CD a) v o. E 0 V a) v o. E 0 V 0 0 CD a) v o. E 0 V 0 0 C7 2 aE 0 V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 0 0 173 Q 0 0 0 0 ### 0 0 ### Plan to Fund? Y N Fund Source: Q O N oW CO O O V = O Completing Part 1: Homeless Population. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one -day point in time. The counts must be from: (A) administrative records, (N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A), (N), (S) or (E). Completing Part 2: Homeless Subpopulations. This must be completed using statistically reliable, unduplicated counts or estimates of homeless persons in sheltered and unsheltered locations at a one -day point in time. The numbers must be from: (A) administrative records, (N) enumerations, (S) statistically reliable samples, or (E) estimates. The quality of the data presented in each box must be identified as: (A), (N), (S) or (E). Sheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth residing in shelters for the homeless. "Shelters" include all emergency shelters and transitional shelters for the homeless, including domestic violence shelters, residential programs for runaway/homeless youth, and any hotel/motel/apartment voucher arrangements paid by a public/private agency because the person or family is homeless. Do not count: (1) persons who are living doubled up in conventional housing; (2) formerly homeless persons who are residing in Section 8 SRO, Shelter Plus Care, SHP permanent housing or other permanent housing units; (3) children or youth, who because of their own or a parent's homelessness or abandonment, now reside temporarily and fora short anticipated duration in hospitals, residential treatment facilities, emergency foster care, detention facilities and the like; and (4) adults living in mental health facilities, chemical dependency facilities, or criminal justice facilities. Unsheltered Homeless. Count adults, children and youth sleeping in places not meant for human habitation. Places not meant for human habitation include streets, parks, alleys, parking ramps, parts of the highway system, transportation depots and other parts of transportation systems (e.g. subway tunnels, railroad car), all-night commercial establishments (e.g. movie theaters, laundromats, restaurants), abandoned buildings, building roofs or stairwells, chicken coops and other farm outbuildings, caves, campgrounds, vehicles, and other similar places. Homeless 2 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Jurisdiction Housing Market Anal Housing Stock Inventory Affordability Mismatch Occupied Units: Renter Occupied Units: Owner Vacant Units: For Rent Vacant Units: For Sale Total Units Occupied & Vacant Rents: Applicable FMRs (in $s) Rent Affordable at 30% of 50% of MFI (in $s) Public Housing Units Occupied Units Vacant Units Total Units Occupied & Vacant Rehabilitation Needs (in $s) ysis Complete cells in blue. Vacancy Rate 0&1 Bed room 2 Bed rooms 3+ Bedroom Total Substandard Units 7% 2% 1534 2133 1270 194 1182 11914 80 230 60 0 29 214 974 1,149 1,617 625 751 867 0 0 0 4937 13290 370 243 18840 47 60 30 38 175 0 0 0 0 0 HSGMarketAnalysis 1 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 H o u s i n I Needs Table Grantee: Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. -- Households # of HousingNeeds - Comprehensive N with a Disor90o Total Low 3-5 Year Quantities Househ Current Current Plan Disabled rtionate Income of Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Year 5* Multi Priorit t° Fund Racial olds in Housing Affordability Strategy -Year _ Need? Source Member lead - House-dof House o Fund? Ethnic Poouiatio o o ° % Need? Hazard n (CHAS) Data Housing Problems holds holds . �flflflflflflflflflflfl HSHLD HSHLD Housing Household Income <=30% MFI Renter I NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 115 100% 155 n0 181 65.2 75 ----------- 0 #### _-- 83.9 130 Any housing problems Cost Burden > 30% 65.2 75 0 #### JIM Cost Burden >50% 65.2 75 ----------- 0 #### _--ximeimiJ Small Related I NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 274 n0 85.4 234----------- 0 #### With Any Housing Problems Cost Burden > 30% 81.8 224----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 76.6 210 ----------- 0 #### Large Related NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 120 -__ 110 With Any Housing Problems 100.0 120 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 87.5 105 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 79.2 95 0 #### All other hshol NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 210 yes With An Housing Problems 76.2 160 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 76.2 160 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 71.4 150 0 #### Owner T NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 54 35.2 19 ----------- 0 #### With Any Housing Problems Cost Burden > 30% 35.2 19 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 35.2 19 ----------- 0 #### Small Related I NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS With Any Housing Problems 100% 210 n0 66.7 140 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 66.7 140 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 66.7 140 ----------- 0 #### Large Related NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 45 -___ n0 100.0 45 ����� 0 #### With Any Housing Problems Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 45 ����� 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 100.0 45 ����� 0 #### All other hshol( NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 24 -----------__--__ n0 With Any Housing Problems 16.7 4----------- 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 16.7 4 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 16.7 4----------- 0 #### a NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 110 ----NI®NIMIMI IN MIN MN NI MI 100% 120 yes 168 With Any Housing Problems 77.3 85 ----------- 0 #### _-_ 91.7 110 Mal Cost Burden > 30% 77.3 85 ����� 0 #### --- "'""liumul Ira IMW Cost Burden >50% 54.5 60 0 0 #### 1 Fr 1 HSGNeed 1 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Housin I Needs Table Grantee: Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. -- Households # Of HousingNeeds - Comprehensive N with a Discir90o Total Low 3-5 Year Quantities Househ Current Current Plan Disabled rtionate Income of Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Year 5* Multi Priorit t° Fund Racial olds in ' ° Housing Affordability Strategy -Year _ Need? source Member lead- House-dof House o Fund? Ethnic Populatlo ° o ° % Need? Hazard n (CHAS) Data Housing Problems holds 100% holds 329y . �flflflflflflflflflflfl HSHLD HSHLD es Housing AU II m NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS a With Any Housing Problems 87.8 289 0 #### ,ljid= bill 1-1 R Cost Burden > 30% 83.3 274--------- 0 #### __— _ AIM __ 2 ti Ln Cost Burden >50% 60.8 200 0 #### m NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 57 yes o,.. With Any Housing Problems 100.0 57 0 #### OCe 0 Cost Burden > 30% 93.0 53 ----------- 0 #### II Cost Burden >50% 43.9 25 ----------- 0 #### v r NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 145 n0 100.0 145 ----------- 0 #### With An Housing Problems O o Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 145 ----------- 0 #### R a Cost Burden >50% 44.8 65 ----------- 0 #### O NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 140 --Eli iiii ail it l —1 yes E With Any Housing Problems 85.7 120 0 #### O w Cost Burden > 30% 85.7 120 ----------- 0 #### C Cost Burden >50% 60.7 85 0 #### 100% 144 -----Ill ®Ili Ill NM P -___ no H 0 0 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS '°Any v With Housing Problems 9 97.2 140 0 #### ce Cost Burden > 30% 97.2 140 0 0 #### v) w Cost Burden >50% 83.3 120 ------- 0 #### O O v NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 75 Ilk IN_-___ n0 2 f, With Any Housing Problems 100.0 75 0 0 ####ce Cost Burden > 30% 100.0 75 0 ####al Cost Burden >50% 86.7 65 0 #### PEI ummumugg 100% 75 Mill--------- U yes r NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS With Any Housing Problems 86.7 65 0 #### 111111111 IA_� 0 Cost Burden > 30% 86.7 65 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 86.7 65 0 #### MFI iter NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 54 ----------P` `I_- 100% 59 n0 179 With Any Housing Problems 81.5 44 ----------- 0 #### _-_ 76.3 45 a LTI Cost Burden > 30% 74.1 40 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 46.3 25 ----------- 0 #### ISmall Related NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 450 yes With Any Housing Problems With 78.9 355 0 #### _--eweeeoevewewewewe�m__ Cost Burden > 30% 65.6 295 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 10.0 45 ----------- 0 #### HSGNeed 2 CPMP CPMP Version 1.3 Housin I Needs Table Grantee: Only complete blue sections. Do NOT type in sections other than blue. -- Households # Of HousingNeeds - Comprehensive N with a Discir90o Total Low 3-5 Year Quantities Househ Current Current Plan Disabled rtionate Income of Number Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4* Year 5* Multi Priorit t° Fund Racial olds in ' ° Housing Affordability Strategy -Year _ Need? Source Member lead- House-dof House o Fund? Ethnic Pooulaho ° o ' % Need? Hazard n (CHAS) Data Housing Problems holds holds . �flflflflflflflflflflfl HSHLD HSHLD Housing o NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 76.7 150 115 0 #### yes Ail. Mill iliM ;■ Mill r. With Any Housing Problems CO ac a 2 Cost Burden > 30% 40.0 60 0 #### _AIM 11 ra Cost Burden >50% 16.7 25 0 #### V NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 215 yes With Any Housing Problems 76.7 165 ----------- 0 #### O a Cost Burden > 30% 76.7 165 ----------- 0 #### n a Cost Burden >50% 14.0 30 ----------- 0 #### a3 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 400 _-___ no 37.5 150 ----------- 0 #### With An Housing Problems O w Cost Burden > 30% 37.5 150 ----------- 0 #### C Cost Burden >50% 13.8 55 ----------- 0 #### ~ v NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 369 _,E kid --Eli iiii yes 0 With Any Housing Problems 91.9 339 0 #### = 76 Cost Burden > 30% 90.8 335 0 #### U) Ul Cost Burden >50% 44.7 165 0 #### O O v NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 230 Ill ®III Ill MI NIP '____yes 2 v With Any Housing Problems 84.8 195 ----------- 0 ####ae a Cost Burden > 30% 84.8 195 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 32.6 75 ----------- 0 #### Z NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 100% 65 ®-- yes With Any Housing Problems 84.6 55 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden > 30% 84.6 55 ----------- 0 #### Cost Burden >50% 38.5 25 ----------- 0 #### _-____ Total Any Housing Problem -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Disabled 285 Total 215 Renter ------------- 0 Tot. Elderly 493 _ Total Lead Hazard 528 Total 215 Owner ------------- 0 Tot. Sm. Related 3785 _ Total Renters 4530 Total 215 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tot. Lg. Related 1470 _ Total Owners 3554 HSGNeed 3 CPMP APPENDIX D. Open -Ended Survey Reponses and Public Comments if dissatisfied, list up to 3 reasons you are dissatisfied with your home or apartment. • Bathroom needs updating. • Builder used cheap materials (built 1992). • CC&Rs suck. • Children have to cross Temecula to attend TV High School passing one on their way. • City needs to notify Medical that 92592 is part of the city and qualifies patients to belong to Kaiser Permanente Group as city advertises for senior care. • Cost is too high for what we get. • Cost too much. • Flow of traffic. • Foreclosures in area have gone up leaving empty lots. • High cost of HOA. • High taxes. • High traffic. • HOA costs are too high. • HOA too high. • Home owner association fees. • Home too small. • Home value has plummeted. • Homes not built too well (cracking, ant problem, paint fading...). • Horrible city lights (yellow). • I can't safely walk or ride my bike anywhere nearby, other than a bike trail that has no destination. • Impersonal neighbors. • Insufficient usable land. • It's a bit small. • Kitchen needs updating. • Lack of new hospital. • Lack of police presence! • Landscaping could be maintained better. • Leaking sprinkler system - landlord refuses to fix. • Local police officers intimidate and discriminate against residents. • Long commute. • Looming quarry! • Many neighbors NOT maintaining their yards. • Materials are substandard and shoddy construction. • My gate isn't maintained. Breaks all the time. • Narrow driveway. • Need much repairs. • Needs lots of maintenance. • Needs repair. • Needs updating. • Needs work I can't afford to do. • Neighborhood has too many rentals now. • Neighborhood upkeep has decreased with decline in home values. • Neighborhood used as "short cut" for parents dropping off kids at Day Middle School. • Neighboring homes are not being maintained. • Neighbors. • Neighbors park their cars for weeks and don't get towed. • Neighbors with barking dogs and don't clean the poo. If dissatisfied...(continued) • No area for kids to play. • No bathroom window. • No linen or bathroom closets. • No schools access for children in area; no form of transportation at all - busses. • No sidewalks in our neighborhood. • Noise. • Noise from street. • Noise. Uncontrollable HOA. • Old. • Old. • On fixed income. • Owner of home next to me rents out each room of the house while they live somewhere else. • Parking camping equipment (Motor homes) with people living in them - parked on streets. MANY complaints filed. Still there. • Peeling paint on house's trim. • Plumbing codes. • Poor maintenance response. • Property taxes. • Quality of the building. • Quality of the home. • Real estate value. • Rent too high and no rent control. • Road repair makes street travel slow. • Septic not working properly. • Skate boarders jumping over NO TRESPASSING signs. Not enforced. • Small kitchen pantry. • Small, segregated lot. • Some rude neighbors. • Speeding cars. • Street design. • Street needs to be re -black -topped. • Structures need to be upgraded. • Taxes are so high with very little going to the school district. On a $5,771 bill only $82 dollars goes to the district. • The quality of the workmanship in the house is very poor. • Time to access freeways has increased. • Too crowded. • Too expensive. • Too many foreclosures. • Too many stupid codes. • Too much school traffic. • Too small. • Traffic. • Traffic at the off ramps. • Traffic in general. • Traffic is too fast for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch Parkways. Blind corners are dangerous for over 35 and has taken lives. • Traffic Yield lane is very seldom acknowledged at Redhawk Golf Course area. Must be redesigned and has taken lives and held the City responsible. • Unpaved road, within city limits. If dissatisfied...(continued) ■ Unruly teens!!! ■ Upside down on loan, therefore cannot make improvements to bring value up. ■ Value has depreciated by 60%. ■ Water damage. ■ We have zero equity due to the crash. Purchased in 2007 with $100,000 down...that plus $100,000 is gone. • We live on what was once a 'view' lot but the neighbors have allowed laurel trees to take seed and grow too tall for us to see anything anymore. • We live within a circular drive that surrounds our neighborhood. During school months it is treacherous to try to enter that circle since parents are racing their kids to school. ■ Would like more trees. ■ Would like newer and larger home. ■ Would like to be in a different high school boundary.. ■ You can tell the homes were built quick. If you could change one thing about your current living situation, what would it be? ■ Crazy obnoxious neighbors should be stopped from ruining neighborhoods. ■ Have some specific repairs we want to do on our current home which we own. ■ HOA cost. ■ I dont want to be here. ■ I would decrease the traffic noise behind my house. ■ I would have more space with neighbors further apart. ■ I would like a better interest rate and lower HOA dues. ■ 1 would like a larger front yard (safe distance from street) and would enjoy a larger backyard for my children. ■ I would like a smaller home. ■ I would like to see more cultured and non xenophobic residents. ■ I would like to sell and move...market down. ■ I would not have lived where I hear freeway noise. ■ Large number of rentals and foreclosures bringing down house prices. ■ Larger house. ■ Live in a home on larger piece of land, less crammed in together in tract housing. ■ Make repairs. ■ More bike paths, better walkability, more parks with water (lakes, ponds), more dog parks. ■ More job opportunities in Temecula. ■ Proximity to neighbors. ■ Smaller house. ■ Something with privacy gates to prevent solicitation and amenities. ■ That our HOA would enforce codes. ■ Wish it was closer for commuting to Orange County. If you would like to live in another part of Temecula, where would that be? ■ Anywhere with good freeway access, that doesn't look neglected. ■ Chardonnay hills or Meadowview. ■ Closer to Temecula Parkway and Butterfield Stage area. ■ Closer to Temecula Valley High School. ■ Closer to the Lake...at Harveston Would have loved to live south of Date Street. ■ Crowne Hill. ■ Crowne Hill. If you would like to live in another part of Temecula...(continued) • Crowne Hill. • Crowne Hill. • De luz. • French Valley. • Further south, closer to 79. We are near Winchester Road. • Gated Community. • Gated community or condo with security. • If we had the money we'd love to live on a property with more land, in Wine Country or Meadowview. • In the city limits. • Meadowview. • Meadowview. • Meadowview. • Meadowview. • Meadowview or Ranchos Santiago. • Morgan Hill. • Morgan Hill. • Morgan Hill or Crowne Hill. • Morgan Hill. • Not sure basically away from Temecula. • Not Temecula. • Off Temecula Parkway. • Old Town. • Paloma del Sol. • Paloma Del Sol or Paseo Del Sol. • Paseo del Sol. • Paseo or Paloma Del Sol. • Redhawk/Vail Ranch area. • Santiago Estates. • Santiago Estates or Chardonnay Hills. • Somewhere with a little more property. I prefer to have a little more space between my house and my neighbors. • South Temecula. • South Temecula. • The Red Hawk area. • Up in the hills like South Temecula. • Wine country. • Wine country. • Wine country. • Wine country. • Wine country. • Wine country or Meadowview. • Wine country, de luz. • Wine country. • Wineries. • Within Great Oak High School boundaries in newer and larger home. If you want to buy a home in Temecula, why haven't you? • Everytime that we put an offer on a home we lose to some investor that offers all cash. • Have not found a home without a HOA attached to it. • Homes in Temecula are plain and resemble each other too much. • I did own a house in Temecula at one time..But lost it like many others in Temecula...Now we rent in Temecula. • The majority of homes I'm interested in purchasing are short sale, forclosure or bank owned making the process very long and arduous. • The mortgage industry is hopelessly corrupt and there are no instruments available other than outright cash purchase and that isn't feasible at current high prices. • Waiting for my spouse to qualify. Potential Barriers to Fair Housing (Other responses) • Difficulty obtaining fire insurance renewal with a company we have been with for many years. We have never fileds a claim or had a fire. • Housing prices are too inflated to invite realistic home purchases... of course this is relative to incomes -- so if incomes doubled housing could be close to normal again. • We bought in 2003 and obviously the market has changed a lot since then! • I bought my home in 2001. In 2006 I bought out my ex-husband's share of the home as part of our divorce and it was appraised at a ridiculously -high price. The market was already coming down but the "value" came in at twice what we had paid. • Lenders lent to people who couldn't afford the house they bought. Lends lent/people borrowed beyond their means. • We could not get rid of our smaller home in order to buy a larger home for our growing family. We are worried about maintaining our rental. We are way too upside-down to sell it. • The inspector missed A LOT of problems. • Homes being FHA approved were hard to find. Have you ever tried to find affordable housing in Temecula and could not? If "Yes," please specify where: • 92592 • All Temecula. • As a single parent I needed a rental anywhere in Temecula. Income requirements were extremely and unreasonably high for property managemet companies and complexes. Had to find a trusting owner that believed with my steady (but not high) income and high FICO that I would pay the rent. • As many places as I could find. • Central and southern Temecula. • Everywhere. • Everywhere in Southern California. • Everywhere; been in Temecula for 21 years and want to stay here. • Harveston. • Newer homes. • Red Hawk/Morgan Hill area. • Redhawk, Morgan Hill. • Redhawk, Pechanga etc. • South Temecula. • Summer Breeze? Not affordable at all. Rents were the same or more than apartments. if "Yes," what type of housing? ■ Anything. I ended up in a condo in Murrieta. ■ Apartments. ■ Family. ■ Housing, condos, apartments. ■ Looking for low income housing for my son (age 24), who just married and is making little money. ■ Low income. ■ Ownership. ■ Rental single family home. ■ Single family and condos. ■ Single family home. ■ Single family home. ■ Single family home. ■ Single family home. ■ Single family homes. ■ Single family. Have you ever tried to get public transit in Temecula and could not? if "Yes," wherefrom? ■ Ataxi from the mall ■ All over town; Temecula Parkway. ■ Anywhere in Temecula on a weekend. ■ Anywhere in Temecula to any school in Temecula. ■ Auto mall area. ■ Calle Medusa. ■ Crowne Hill. ■ French Valley. ■ Harveston. ■ Highway 79 South. ■ La Serena and Calle Medusa. ■ Margarita Road and Temecula Parkway. ■ Off Luzon, Nicolas Road. ■ Old Town. ■ Old Town. ■ Paloma del Sol neighborhood in Temecula. ■ Redhawk. ■ Redhawk. ■ Redhawk. ■ Temecula in the evenings/weekends. ■ Temecula Valley High. ■ Temecula. ■ Temecula. ■ Temecula. ■ Temeku Hills. ■ We need Harveston Trolley stops on the north side of Date street. Also, the Harveston Trolley route is confusing near YBES. ■ Winchester. ■ Wolf Creek. if yes, where to? • Anywhere without transfers and within the school day. Trying to plan field trips on public transportation for special needs students and we don't have time within a school morning. • Anywhere. • Anywhere. • Anywhere except Murrieta on a weekend. • Chaparral High School. • Jefferson / Hospital in Murrieta. • Mall. • Mid town and out of town. • MSJC. • Murrieta. • Murrieta Hot Springs Road x Margarita in Murrieta. • North side of town. • Old Town. • Old Town, west of town. • Promenade Mall. • Promenade Mall and Old Town. • Riverside. • San Diego. • San Diego. • San Diego. • San Diego by bus. Can go to Oceanside and get train, but it's very long and not worth the bother. • San Diego in the evenings/weekends. • San Diego, Mira Mar area. • Schools for my children. • To residential areas near Temecula Valley High School. Do you agree with the this statement: "I feel that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula." If "Disagree," why do you not feel welcome? • I personally feel welcome here because I have made my footprint by being very involved in schools and community activities, but in general I dont see that there is much room for single -parent families. I served on a school site council where a future mayor of the city of Temecula touted the wonder of Temecula based on its low percentage of single -parent families, and the low percentage of apartment dwellers. I was very insulted since both applied to me at the time. • As a divorced single mother, I find Temecula is not as welcoming as it was when I moved here as in intact family in 1993. This has to do with the "culture" of the community, as well as the social offerings. Because of this, I intend to move away from Temecula as soon as my high school freshman daughter goes to college. • Both. I feel that there are issues concerning racism in the community. • Except!!!! The lack of proactive policing!!!! To many robberies, breakins etc and they are allowed. Bad kids should be Punished!!!! • However I do have a special needs child and believe that law enforcement could be better trained on how to deal with situations that arise. • I feel people like me are welcome but only peoplle like me are welcome here, most of the people that are like me are extremley xenophobic in this town and cannot deal with other cultures Do you agree with the this statement...(continued) ■ I happy to be in a same sex relationship. I don't expect everyone to jump up for joy but I do expect for people to be respectful and tolerant. I don't have the "gay pride" flag flowing from my awning so the super conservatives might want to consider compromising a bit as well. Who ever told "Jesus" to find another home other than Margarita and Winchester, I would like to personally give them a hug. I remember, not too long ago when prop 8 was under way and I had to listen to that individual yell terrible, hateful things to the crowd. I believe strongly in free spreach but sometimes which Temeculas were a bit more moderate. I would also like to personally thank our City Council for sticking up for peoples freedom of religion by okaying the Mosque. I am proud to have elected you and thank you. Other than that I love this city. Oh and a HUGE THANK YOU for widening Winchester by the Highschool. That is my neck of the woods and it has really helped with congestion. Thanks again. • I have been in Temecula since 1988. Married (now) I feel welcome. As a single parent, it was very difficult. Affordable after school programs were nearly non-existent. Transportation to and from school were not affordable if you dont live near school. It is very expensive to participate in sports, school or otherwise. As far as not feeling welcome, it is evolving somewhat now, but this city is very "traditional family friendly", but if your family deviates from the norm it is not welcoming. • Most of temecula is stuck up soccer mom mentality ■ My family is mixed race and are consistently ignored in shopping centers or given undue unwanted negative attention. • No much help for fixed income seniors • No place for teens to have safe INDOOR fun....bowling, skating, Advertising signs all along grass on main streets. Campers parked on neighborhood streets with people living in them. Code enforcement was useless. This happened 2x on our block..one camper STILL there. • We are not members of a Christian religion If "Yes," what was the reason you were discriminated against? • I believe my home was foreclosed without Countrywide making a reasonable effort to allow us to keep it. Also I believe my income was inflated to qualify in 2005. • I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want me to live in. • In Orange County we were once denied a rental because we had children. • Realtor steering us away from certain homes. • Single parent. ■ We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did not present our offer to the seller. If "Yes," please specify who you would contact to report housing discrimination: • California Department of Real Estate • ACLU • Department of Housing and Urban Develoment (HUD) • Fair Housing • Fair housing • Fair Housing of Riverside County, but only because I work for the County do I know that. • Fair Housing Tip Line (to report an incident of housing discrimination): 1-800-896-7743 • Federal housing administration • HUD • I would look it up on the Internet • lawyer • Lawyers • My lawyer!!! • Riverside County Fair Housing COUNCIL BUSINESS Item No. 13 Approvals City Attorney Director of Finance City Manager Por CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director of Community Services DATE: April 10, 2012 SUBJECT: Appointment of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee for the Inclusive Play Structure Project (at the request of Mayor Pro Tem Naggar) RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two individuals to serve as the Inclusive Play Structure Ad Hoc Subcommittee. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has planned for the design and construction of an inclusive play structure that would involve the creation of a park area, fencing, adaptive play apparatus for youth with special needs, access to convenient restroom facilities, as well as picnic tables, benches and a water feature. The Inclusive Play Structure Special Needs Park was previously identified in the City's 2011-12 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). At that time, the project was slated to be located within the Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park. Based on recent input from the special needs community and research and review by City staff of alternative locations, it has been determined this is not the preferred location for this use. Staff is recommending this project remain in the upcoming CIP budget for Fiscal Year 2012-13 and as a part of the scope of work/RFP, staff will be seeking a qualified design/contractor that may also provide professional input on the most suitable park location. In an effort to provide direction to staff in the planning of the Inclusive Play Structure project, it has been recommended that an Ad Hoc Subcommittee be formed. Providing programs and services including recreation, sports and therapeutic opportunities is identified in the City of Temecula Youth Master Plan addendum for Youth with Special Needs. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None REQUESTS TO SPEAK Date REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. 1l/rolf� Subject TK1Vi 5(612 For ❑ Against nPublic Comment I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. C hrc�. Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record All information provided is optional., � Address: City/State/Zip /40 e j C q02 5- (Zig If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: ��UISr6rr (hl71 REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date 0617/0 Il)0 f I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Subject 7-7vi(VIf�61C (hi(d-ren #IroK7 201 Ft For 0 Against nPublic Comment Z. (/Cover ti 1,- 5 fC vt' Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record All information provided is optional. Name: 410 e ti Phone:( Address: City/State/Zip . i �`e2 Ci 4 Q2 -6,L1 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: 1 A' C./ 6 e 6 fc, reil. REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date °Z/- " /Z I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. ..L5L5_, Subject iYI�Gv�"� p rAor Against nPublic Comment /17 Z/7i9/Lra Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record information provided Ls optional. Name: 0 1-t rJ 1 a2 v• Phone: ' Address: City/State/Zip If you are presenting an • ion or group, please give the name: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date `�' / 0 / Subject ❑ For ❑ Against Public Comment I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. 2017- 1 1 Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record All information provided is optional. Name: a `� -2 Vl, `�i o- c C Phone: • City/State/Zip ,Q litl %-) C n - A 2 S 1 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Date REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Subject I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. nFor A ainst Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record. All information provided is optional. NamecPt y ° � S � w� Phone: Address: - City/State/Zip /1414(12e.-/ , 6 / a' �-F-6 If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Ple • se go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Date / 2 I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. Subject 71/ - z1, 'f ( (-1/ ie& Cif3 X ❑ For Against Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record �f( information provided is optional. Name,/j<Y -,14 Address: Phone: City/State/Zip If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: Date REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY OF TEMECULA After completing, please return to the City Clerk. The City Clerk will call your name when the matter comes up. Please go to the public podium and state your name for the record. Subject I wish to speak on Agenda Item No. . / 1.,t)A lk ❑ For ❑ Against Public Comment Please note that all information presented at a City Council meeting becomes public record I) All information provided is optional. Name: (A) ` ' -/,, i(((_ t (1� /4 / ( Phone: Address: City/State/Zip If you are representing an organization or group, please give the name: