HomeMy WebLinkAbout080100 CC/PC Jnt. Workshop AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 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
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION
AN ADJOURNED REGULAR WORKSHOP
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
AUGUST 1, 2000- 6:00 P.M.
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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Stone
Invocation:
Councilman Naggar
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone
Planning Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
Guerriero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five-minute (5) time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS
Repods by the members of the City Council/Planning Commission on matters not on the
agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted
to these reports.
R:~Agenda\080100
1
COUNCIL/COMMISSION BUSINESS
1 Housing Element ProGress Report
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive the Housing Element Needs Assessment and provide comments
regarding issues to be addressed in the updated Housing Element.
2 Growth Manaqement Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the density and
amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
3 General Plan ProGress Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Provide comments on the Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth
Management) that should be examined during the update of the City's
General Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
City Council next regular meeting: Tuesday, August 8, 2000, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Planning Commission next regular meeting: Wednesday, August 2, 6:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\080100
2
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE~'DISTRICTi. MEE, TING=?~! !'::
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENTCALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 13, 2000.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: August 8, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., scheduled to follow the City Council Consent
Calendar, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\080100
3
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING:'~:'!: i !:"
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts presiding
ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberrs
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of June 13, 2000.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: August 8, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., scheduled to follow the Community Services
District Meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:V~genda\0801 O0
4
ITEM 1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVI~,~
CiTY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council/Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City ManageP~'~
August 1, 2000
Housing Element Progress Report
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council and Planning Commission receive the Housing Element
Needs Assessment and provide comments regarding issues to be addressed in the updated Housing
Element.
BACKGROUND:
Historically cities and counties are required to update their Housing Elements every five years. For
the last six years State funds were not available to prepare the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
which is the basis for updating the Housing Element. Under a new State law, cities and counties in
the six-county region served by the Southem California Association of Government (SCAG) have
until December 31, 2000 to update their housing elements.
The City of Temecula selected Cotton Beland and Associates to prepare the Housing Element
update. During the last pad of 1999 and early 2000 they have been preparing a needs assessment
for the City. This assessment is based on the current Housing Element and the development
changes that have occurred in Temecula since this Element was adopted. The Consultant will be
presenting the findings of the needs assessment along with recommendations for future programs
that will insure a Housing Element that will qualify for State Certification,
After the consultant's presentation, the Council and Commission will have an opportunity to comment
on the needs assessment and provide input on key issues related to the Housing Element.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the 2000/2001 budget to cover the $27,250.00
cost of the Housing Element Update Fund from the Consulting Services line item (001-161-999-
5248).
Attachments:
1. Draft Housing Needs Assessment
R:\BROWNS~housing clcmenfiSlaffReport-ee workshop 8-14)0.doe
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
DRAFT HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
R:\BRO~¥NS~housing elementXStaff Report-cc workshop 8-1-00.doe
2
City of Temecula
2000-2005 Housing Element
Needs Assessment
July 2000
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Consultants to the City
Cotton/Beland/Associates
6336 Greenwich Drive, Suite F
San Diego, CA 92122
1100.00
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Section
Page
Section I. Introduction
Section II. Housing Needs Assessment
A. Population Characteristics
B. Employment Characteristics
C. Household Characteristics
D. Special Needs Populations
E. Housing Stock Characteristics
Section III. Constraints on Housing Production
A. Market Constraints
B. Governmental Constraints
C. State Tax Policies and Regulations
D. Infrastructure Constraints
E. Environmental Constraints
Section IV. Housing Resources
A. Sites for Housing Development
B. Financial Resources
C. Non-profit Housing Developers
D. Infrastructure and Facilities
E. Energy Conservation
4-1
4-2
4-2
4-4
4-6
4-9
4-11
4-22
4-22
4-23
4-31
4-31
4-32
4-33
4-33
4-37
4-39
4-39
4-39
TOC · July 17, 2000 Page 4-i
CITY OF TEMECULA
Figure
Figure 4-1 1990 Age Distribution
Figure 4-2 Temecula Housing Stock Composition
Housing Element
Page
4-3
4-12
TOC · July 17, 2000 Page 4-ii
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Table
Page
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4-4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Population Growth Trends
1990 Race and Ethnicity
Employment of Residents by Occupation
Employment by Industry: 1996
Household Growth Trends
Average Number of Persons per Household
1998 Household Income by Income Group
Table4-8 1990 Households Overpaying for Housing
Table 4.9 Total Housing Units
Table 4-10 1990 Housing Tenure
Table 4-11 Age of Housing Stock
Table 4-12 Median Home Prices
Table 4-13 Housing Sales - January 1999 through June 2000
Table 4. 14 Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category - Riverside County
Table 4-15 Assisted Housing Inventory and At Risk Status
Table 4-16 Value of At-Risk Housing Units - Rancho California Apartments
Table 4-17 Rent Subsidies Required
Table 4. 18 Disposition of Conventional Loan Applications - 1997
Table 4. 19 Disposition of Government Backed Loan Applications - 1997
Table 4-20 Residential Development Standards
Table 4-21 Parking Space Requirements
Table 4-22 Planning Fee Schedule - City of Temecula
Table 4-23 Development Fees - City of Temecula
Table 4-24 Residential Development Potential of Vacant Land Outside Specific Plan Areas
Table 4-25 Remaining Approved Residential Development for Existing Specific Plans
Table 4-26 Regional Housing Growth Need by Income Group
4-2
4.4
4-4
4.5
4-6
4-7
4.8
4-9
4.12
4-13
4-13
4.14
4.15
4-15
4-17
4-19
4-20
4-23
4-23
4-25
4-25
4-29
4-30
4-33
4-34
4-36
TOC · July 17, 2000
Page 4-iii
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Temecula is a growing community located along Interstate 15 in southwestern
Riverside County, just north of the San Diego County line. Located in Temecula Valley, the
City is surrounded by gentle rolling hills, close to the wine country. Surrounded by this
attractive natural setting and located with access to both Orange and Los Angeles Counties to
the north and San Diego County .to the south, the City population almost doubled during the
past ten years, increasing from 27,099 persons in 1990 to 53,791 persons in 2000.
With its European history beginning in the 1800's, Temecula has played an important role
locally for over a century. Old Town Temecula is the historic core of the City and is located in
the western portion of the City. The City's current development trend, changing it from a
small agricultural community to an urbanized city, began in 1964 when Kaiser Aluminum and
Chemical purchased the 87,500-acre Vail Ranch. Development of the ranch occurred under
the design of a master plan that continues to influence the land use pattern and circulation
system of Temecula today. Much of the remaining vacant land within the City will be
developed under the control of approved specific plans.
The majority (79%) of the existing housing in Temecula consists of single-family houses, with
the remainder consisting of multi-family units. The high number of single-family homes is
reflective of the City's young family-oriented population and desire to maintain its rural
traditions. In comparison to the surrounding communities, the cost of purchasing a new home
in Temecula is high, with a 1999 median price of $195,000. In the neighboring communities
of Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Mumeta, and Perris the 1999 median home price ranges from
$79,250 to $169,000, while the median home price in the County is $130,000.
Employment opportunities exist within Temecula, allowing residents to work and live within
the City. In 1990, the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimated an
average of 1.66 jobs was available in Temeeula for each household, approximating the City
average of 1.62 wage earners per household. Thejobs/housing ratio in Temecula is anticipated
to decrease to only 1.06 jobs per household by 2005, as the construction of new housing
outpaces employment growth.
The City of Temecula is faced with important housing issues such as preserving the historic
traditions of the community; ensuring that new development is compatible with the existing
character; providing a range of housing that meets the needs of all residents; ensuring that the
supply of housing is affordable to all segments of the community; and balancing employment
and housing opportunities. This Housing Element evaluates housing needs in Temecula based
on its demographic and housing characteristics, compiles an inventory of resources available to
address the identified housing needs, assesses the effectiveness and appropriateness of existing
housing programs being implemented by the City, and craRs a housing strategy that would
effectively address the housing issues relating to availability, adequacy, and affordability
within the limitations of the City. This Housing Element represents a policy statement
indicating that Temecula will continue to strive toward maintaining and enhancing its housing
quality and its desirability as a place to work and live.
I. lnrro ,, July 17, 2000 Page 4- I
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element describes the supply and demand for housing in Temecula
and is broken into five subsections, addressing the characteristics of population, employment,
households, special needs populations, and housing stock. This analysis provides the basis for
developing a successful housing program that meets the needs of the community.
A. Population Characteristics
1. Population Growth Trends
Temecula is the fifth largest city among the 24 cities in the County of Riverside.
According to the Census, Temecula had a population of 27,099 in 1990. During the
period from 1990 to 2000, the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that
the City population almost doubled. As depicted in Table 4-1, Temecula experienced
the largest growth in the last ten years in comparison to surrounding communities, and
almost three times the growth that the County as a whole experienced.
Jurisdiction
Ternecula
Hernet
Lake Elsinore
Munieta'
Perris
Riverside County
Table 4-1
Population Growth Trends
% Change
1990'
27,099
36,094
18,285
24,264
21,460
1,170,413
Projected
2000 1990-2000 2005
53,791 98% 72,080
62,751 74% 75,646
30,370 66% 53,261
43,989 81% "
32.369 51% i 55,062
1,522,855 30% ! 1.976,938
Projected % Change
2000-2005
34%
21%
75%
70%
30%
SCAG estimates that Temecula will continue to experience substantial growth during
the next five years. The level of growth however, is anticipated to be less than that
experienced during the last ten years, with a projected growth of 34% to about 72,000
persons. For Riverside County, an overall 30% growth is expected for the next five
years. The neighboring cities of Lake Elsinom and Perris are expected to experience
greater growth in comparison to Temecula in the coming years. Temecula's share of
the total population in Riverside County is projected to maintain at slightly below 4%
in 2005.
I I. Needs · July I7, 2000 Page 4-2
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
2. Age Characteristics
The age structure of a population is an important factor in evaluating housing needs and
projecting the distribution of future housing development. Traditionally, both the
young adult population (20-34) and the elderly population (65+) tend to prefer low to
moderate cost, smaller units. Persons between 35 to 54 years old usually reside in
higher cost, larger units .because they typically have higher incomes and a larger
household size.
As shown in Figure 4-1, the 1990 population of Temecula contains a younger
population than the County as a whole. The median age of Temecula residents was
29.1, while the County median age was 31.5. While the City population has grown
significantly since 1990, the City has remained as a family-oriented community and
mostly likely has maintained a similar age structure as in 1990. This age structure
indicates that the City may require larger single-family homes to meet the needs of
families with their school age children, as well as smaller, moderately priced houses
and multi-family units for those younger individuals who do not have children, or are
just beginning their families.
Figure 4-1
1990 Age Distribution
45% ,
40% -
35%;
30% ~
25% 2
20% ~
15% ~
10%
5%
0%
II Temecula
~ · Riverside County
<5 5-17 18-20 21-24 25-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+
Age Groups
Source: 1990 Census
3. Race/Ethnicity Characteristics
The racial and ethnic composition of a population affects housing needs because of the
unique household characteristics of different racial/ethnic groups. These characteristics
tend to correlate with other factors such as family size, housing location choices, and
mobility. As shown in Table 4-2, the large majority (81%) of the 1990 population in
Temecula was White, with Hispanics making up the next largest ethnic group (15%).
In comparison, Riverside County contains a much more diverse population. Only 64%
II. Needs · July l 7, 2000 Page 4-3
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
of the County's 1990 population was White. The next largest ethnic group was the
Hispanic popu!ation at 26%.
Table 4-2
1990 Race and Ethnicity
Race/
Ethnicity
White
Black
Asian/Other
Hispanic
Total
s~rce: ~990census
Number of Temecula % of Temecula's Number of Riverside % of Riverside
Residents Population County Residents County's Population
21,882 i 80,7% i 754,140 ~ 64,4%
395 i 1,5% i 59,966 ~ 5,1%
883 i 3.3% i 48,793 i 4.2%
3,939 i 14.5% i 307,514 i 26.3%
27,099 j 100.0% i 1,170,413 i 100.0%
Since 1990, the racial and ethnic composition of Temecula's population has changed.
This is reflected in the school enrollment data obtained from the State Department of
Education. Enrollment data for the 1997/98 school year in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District showed that only 71 percent of the students were White, 18
percent were Hispanic, 7 percent were Asian and others, and 4 percent were Black.
B. Employment Characteristics
1. Employment Growth
According to the 1990 Census, 13,932 Temecula residents were in the labor force,
representing a labor participation rate of 74%. (The labor force includes employed and
unemployed persons aged 16 years and above.) As shown in Table 4-3, most of the
residents were employed in two categories of occupation: managerial and professional
specialty (29%) and sales, technical, and administrative support (33%). In 1990, the
unemployment rate was 3.1%. According to the State Employment Development
Department, Temecula's unemployment rate in June 2000 was 2.9%, much lower than
the countywide rate of 4.7%.
Table 4-3
Employment of Residents by Occupation
Occupation
Managerial/Professional
Sales/Technica~Administrative (SupportO
Service Occupation
Precision Production, Craft & Repair
Operators, Fabrications, Laborers
Farming, Forestry, Fishing
Total
Number of Jobs
3,753
4,349
1,303
1,861
1,537
339
13,142
% of Total
28.6%
33.1%
9.9%
14.2%
11.7%
2.6%
100.0%
II. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 44
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
A City study of employment opportunities indicated that there were 19,714 jobs in
Temecula in 1996. Employment by industry is tabulated in Table 4-4. As shown,
manufacturing and retail trade were the primary industries in Temecula.
Manufacturing
Retail Trade
Government, Education, Utilities
Distribution & Transportation
Agriculture & Mining
Support Services
Construction
Hotel & Amusement
Business Services
Finance & Real Estate
Health Services
Engineering & Management
Total
Source: City of Temecula C~mmunity Profile, 1996.
Table 4-4
Employment by Industry: 1996
Industry # of Jobs
5,455
4,370
1,910
1,445
1,193
1,048
1,130
860
777
571
563
393
19,714
% of Total
27.7%
22,2%
9.7%
7.3%
6.1%
5.35
5.7%
4,4%
3.9%
2,9%
2.6%
2.0%
100.0%
According to SCAG, the City had an employment base of 15,184jobs in 1990, which is
projected to increase by 53% to 23,179 by the year 2005, representing an average
annual growth of 3.5%. With this projected increase in employment, thers will likely
be an accompany increase in the demand for housing in the City.
2. Jobs-Housing Ratio
A general measure of the balance between a community's employment opportunities
and the housing needs of its residents is through a "jobs-housing ratio" test. According
to the Census, Temecula had an average of 1.62 wage-eamers in a family while SCAG
estimated that the City had 1.66 jobs per household in 1990. These figures generally
indicated that the City provided adequate employment opportunities in the City,
potentially allowing a portion of its residents to work in the City. In comparison,
Riverside County had 1.50 wage-eamers per family, but offered only 0.89 job per
household in 1990. Overall, more residents in other parts of the County worked outside
of their place of residence.
However, by the year 2005, the jobs-per-housing ratio in Temecula is projected to
decrease substantially to 1.06, indicating that employment growth in the City is not
projected to keep pace with household growth. By the year 2005, an increased number
of Temecula residents will commute to other places in the region for employment.
II. Needs · Julyl 7, 2000 Page 4-5
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
C. Household Characteristics
1. Household Growth Trends
Parallel to the population growth trends shown in Table 4-1, household growth in
Temecula exceeded that of the surrounding communities and the County as a whole.
Between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in Temecula increased by 74%
while that in the County only increased by 20%. Comparing the City population
growth (98%) with its household growth (74%) indicates that the City has become more
family-oriented with increasing household size. Overall, Temecula is expected to grow
at a faster pace than the County as shown in Table 4-5. However, the discrepancy is
expected to shrink by 2005 when Temecula's household growth is projected at 37% and
the County's at 32%.
Table 4-5
Household Growth Trends
% Change Projected Projected % Change
Judsdiction 1990' 2000 1990-2000 2005 2000-2005
Temecula 9,130 15,875 74% 21,816 37%
Hernet 17.397 27,241 57% 33.645 24%
Lake EIsinore 6,066 8,844 46% 16, 199 83%
Mur~eta* 6.849 10,296 50%
Pen'is 6,726 8,850 32% 16.811 90%
Riverside County 402,067 483.580 20% 640,311 32%
2. Household Composition and Size
The characteristics of the households in a city are important indicators of the type of
housing needed in that community. The Census defines a household as all persons who
occupy a housing unit, which may include families related through marriage or blood,
unrelated individuals living together, or individuals living alone. People living in
retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories, or other group living situations are not
considered households.
According to the 1990 Census, 80% of the 9,130 households in Temecula were
considered families~. Among the 1,861 non-family households, 1,264 (68%) were
single people living alone, including 259 (14%) elderly persons living alone. Overall,
only 12 Temecula residents lived in group quarters in 1990.
i Farmlies are deftned by the Census as people who live together in a household who are related to the householder by
birth, marriage, or adoption.
It. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-6
J
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
Household size is an important indicator for identifying sources of population growth
as well as overcrowding in individual housing units. A city's average household size
may decline in communities where the population is aging. As depicted in Table 4-6,
the average persons per household increased by 14% in Temecula during the period of
1990-2000. This is consistent with the large number of families with school age
children living in Temecula. Except for Hemet and Mumeta, surrounding communities
also experienced a similar. growth in average household size.
Table 4-6
Average Number of Persons per Household
1990 & 2000
Judsdiction
Temecula
Hernet
Lake Elsinore
Mumeta'
Perds
Riverside County
· AsMurrietawasnotine~t
Average Persons/Household
1990 2000
2.97 3.39
2.04 2.27
2.99 3.41
3,53 4.27
3.16 3.63
2.85 3.09
erred in 19~0. 1992 Department of Finance
% Change
1990 - 2000
14.1%
9.7%
14.1%
21.0%
14.9%
8.4%
Source: 1990 Census and CaJfforniaDepamnemofFina~ce, Januaff1,1992mqdJanuat,/1,
3. Household Income
The income earned by a household is an important indicator of the household's ability
to acquire adequate housing. While Upper Income households have more discretionary
income to spend on housing, Low and Moderate Income households are more limited in
the range of housing that they can afford. Typically, as the income of households
decreases the incidence of overpayment and overcrowding increases.
The California DeparUnent of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has
developed the following income categories:
· Very Low Income Households earn between 0 and 50% of the Median Family
Income (MFI), adjusted for household size;
Low Income Households earn between 51 and 80% of the MFI, adjusted for
household size;
· Moderate Income Households earn between 81 and 120% of the MFI,
adjusted for household size; and,
· Above Moderate/Upper Income Households earn over 120% of the MFI,
adjusted for household size.
It. Needs, JulyIT, 2000 Page 4-7
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
As part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), SCAG has developed
estimates on income distribution for all jurisdictions within the SCAG region in 1998.
The income distributions for Temecula and Riverside County are presented in Table 4-
7. Overall, household incomes in Temecula are higher than Countywide, with about
22% of households in the City earning Very Low and Low incomes while more than
35% of the households in the County were lower incomes. Median household income
in Temecula was estimated at $56,946 in 1998, which continued to be higher than the
Countywide median income of only $46,500.
Table 4-7
1998 Household Income by Income Group
Income Group
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Upper Income
Total
City of Temecula
Owner- Renter.
Households Households
4.6% 19.8%
7.1% 18,6%
17.3% 27.7%
71.0% 33,9%
100.0% 100.0%
Source: Regional Housing Needs Assessment, SCAG, 1998.
Total Westem Riverside
Households County
10.1% 19.9%
11.3% 15.5%
21.1% ! 20.9%
57.5% i 43.7%
100.0% i 100.0%
4. Overcrowding
An ovemrowded household is typically defined as one with more than one person per
room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. A severely overcrowded
household is defined as one with more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding in
results from either a lack of affordable housing and/or a lack of available housing units
of adequate size.
According to the 1990 Census, only 117 (2%) of the owner-households and 321 (9.7%)
of the renter-households were overcrowded. In comparison, overcrowding was a more
prevalent issue Countywide, with 6% of the owner-households and 18% of the renter-
households living in overcrowded conditions.
5. Overpayment
State and Federal standards consider a family as overpaying for housing if it spends
more than 30% of its gross income on housing. A household that is spending more than
it can afford for housing has less money available for other necessities and emergency
expenditures. Very Low Income households overpaying for housing are more likely to
be at risk of becoming homeless than other households. Renter-households overpay
for their housing costs more often than owner-households because of their typically
lower incomes. Compared to renters, overpayment by owners is less of a concern
because homeowners have the option to retinanee the mortgage, or to sell the house and
move into rentals or buy a less expensive home.
1[. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-8
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
As shown in Table 4-8 below, among the City's overpaying households, 40% were
Very Low and .Low Income households and 60% were Moderate and Upper Income
households. The majority of the Moderate and Upper Income households with housing
overpayments were homeowners. Overall, lower income renter-households were more
impacted by housing overpayment than other groups. Similarly, Countywide,
approximately 35% of the households experiencing housing overpayment in 1990
earned lower incomes.
Table 4-8
1990 Households Overpaying for Housing
Total Households Renter-Households Owner-Households
Overpaying Overpaying Overpaying
Income Group # % # % # %
Very Low Income 850 21.3% 669 45.2% 181 7.2%
Low Income 757 19.0% 434 29.3% 323 12.9%
Moderate/Upper Income 2,385 59.7% 378 25.5% 2,007 79.9%
Total Overpaying Households 3,992 100.0% 1,481 100.0% 2,511 100.0%
Source: CHAS Databook, HUD, 1993.
D. Special Needs Populations
Certain segments of the population may have a more difficult time finding decent,
affordable housing due to their special circumstances or needs. These "special needs"
population include elderly persons, disabled persons, large households, single parent
households, farm workers, and the homeless.
1. Agricultural Workers
Agriculture is a predominant industry in Riverside County and the area is divided into
four distinct agricultural districts. The City of Temecula is located within the San
Jacinto/Temecula agricultural district. The 1990 Census reported 339 Temecula
residents employed in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations. While there is no
agricultural operation in the City, nearby wineries represent an employment base for
agricultural workers. The City study indicates that 1,193 agriculture-related jobs were
located in Temecula in 1996. Agricultural workers face various housing issues due to
their typically lower incomes and the seasonal nature of their work.
2. Single Parents
Single-parent families with children often require special attention due to their needs
for affordable childcare, health care, and housing assistance. Female-headed families
with children particularly tend to have lower incomes, thus limiting housing availability
for this group.
II. Needs · Julyl 7, 2000 Page 4-9
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
According to the 1990 Census, 750 households in Temecula were headed by single-
parents, 70% of. which were headed by females. Among the female-headed households,
43% were living below the poverty level.
3. Elderly
The special needs of the elderly are a function of their often lower or fixed income. In
addition, housing for the elderly often requires special attention in design to allow
greater access and mobility. Housing located within vicinity of community facilities
and public transportation also facilitates mobility of the elderly in the community.
According to the Census, Temecula had 1,709 residents age 65 or older, representing
slightly more than 6% of the total population. In Temecula, about 14% of all owner-
householders in 1990 were over 65 years of age. Furthermore, approximately 30% of
the elde~y residents were reported to have self-care and mobility limitations and/or
work disabilities. Many elderly live on fixed incomes and occupy older homes. These
factors make paying for needed home repairs and maintenance difficult.
4. Persons with Disabilities
In 1990, about 9% of the Temecula residents age 16 or over were recorded by the
Census as experiencing self-care and mobility limitations and/or work disabilities.
Physical and mental disabilities can hinder a person's access to traditionally designed
housing units (and other facilities) as well as potentially limit the ability to earn income.
Housing that satisfies the design and location requirements of disabled persons is
limited in supply and often costly to provide.
Housing oppommities for disabled persons can be addressed through the provision of
affordable, barrier-flee housing. In addition to the development of new units,
rehabilitation assistance can also be provided to disabled residents to make necessary
improvements to remove architectural barriers of existing umts.
5. Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more persons. The 1990 Census
reported 1,336 households in Temecula had five or more members, 70% were owner-
households and 30% were renters. Typically, the availability of adequately sized and
affordable housing units is a major obstacle facing large households. In 1990,
Temeeula had 3,528 three-bedroom housing units and another 3,166 housing units with
four or more bedrooms. Thus, the City has an adequate supply of large-size housing
units. The issue for large households is related to affordability, particularly among
renters. According to the Census, 48% of the large renter-households were overpaying
for housing.
1I. Needs, Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-10
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
6. Homeless
The homeless population refers to persons lacking consistent and adequate shelter.
According to the 1990 Census, there were no homeless person reported visible at street
locations in Temecula. The Temecula Police Department indicated that approximately
20 to 22 homeless persons were estimated to be living in the Old Town retail area. A
program was put into place to find housing for these persons and all were placed. Since
then, only a few homeless persons travelling through are found in the City. Outside of
the City in the agricultural areas, rural homeless persons such as migrant farmer
workers are occasionally identified.
A number of facilities and service agencies serve the homeless in the Temecula Valley
area:
Corner Stone Outreach, Inc. - A one-year supervised residential structured
program for males aged 18 to 60. This program offers shelter, food, clothing,
Christian education, and assistance in legal matters.
Mustard Seed - Transitional housing facility for women and their children.
Mustard Seed operates a four-bedroom facility that can accommodate up to 15
women and children. The maximum stay is six months and education on
parenting skills, finance, and other life skills is provided.
Valley Restart Shelter - Drop-in center for homeless people offering showers,
meals, telephone, counseling, transportation, temporary mailing address,
laundry facilities, job information and referral.
E. Housing Stock Characteristics
1. Housing Growth Trends
As shown in Table 4-9, the housing stock in Temecula increased by almost 74% during
the period of 1990 to 2000. Temecula had the greatest increase in its housing stock
compared to the surrounding communities. However, over the next few years,
Temecula is expected to experience only moderate housing growth, while a housing
boom is anticipated for the surrounding Lake Elsinom and Petals.
2. Housing Type
The majority (78%) of the existing housing stock in Tememila consists of single-family
detached and attached homes (see Figure 4-2). Single-family housing units are
dispersed throughout the City. Multi-family developments of five or more units
represent the next largest segment (19%) of the housing stock, and the greatest
concentration of apartment complexes is located along Margarita Drive. Consisting of
II. Needs · Julyl 7, 2000 Page 4-11
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
276 units, Heritage Mobilehome Park located in the northeastern comer of the City is
the only mobilehome park in Temecula.
Judsdiction
Ternecula
Hernet
Lake Elsinore
Murrieta"
Perds
Riverside County
.~ ~e~a w~ not .r~r
Table 4-9
Total Housin Units
1990' 2000
10,659 18,534
19,692 30,802
6,981 10,150
9,664 14,528
7,761 10,444
483,847 582,419
% Change
1990-2000
74%
56%
45%
50%
35%
20%
2005
21,816
33,645
16,199
16,811
640,311
% Change
2000-2005
18%
9%
60%
61%
10%
Figure 4-2
Temecula Housing Stock Composition
Mu8j Famly (2-4 un~)
327 unils (2%)
/-' SIngle Femly (detached)
14,287 units
Source: California Department of Finance, January 1,2000
3. Tenure
Table 4-10 illustrates the tenure distribution of occupied housing in Temecula and in
the surrounding communities. Compared to the surrounding communities Temecula
has an average rate of homeownership. Correlating the high percentage of single-
family homes that exist in Temecula and the average proportion of renters in the City
indicates that many single-family homes are used as rentals.
1I. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-12
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
The rate of vacancy is a measure of housing availability in a community. A vacancy
rate of 5% generally indicates an adequate supply of housing with room for mobility.
According to the 2000 DOF data, the overall vacancy rate in Temecula was 14.4%
while that in the County was recorded at 17.0%. The relatively high vacancy rate in
Temecula and in the County is attributed to the high level of residential development
activities in the area, with many housing units being put on the market for sale at any
given time.
Jurisdiction
Temecula
Fiemet
Lake
Elsinore
Murdeta"
Pen'is
Owner Occupied
5,806
10,844
3,565
424
4,703
Riverside 270,876
County
Table 4-10
1990 Housing Tenure
Occupied Dwellinc
% of Total
Occupied Units i Renter Occupied
63.6% ! 3,324
62.3% ! 6,553
58.8% i 2,501
74.6% 144
69.9% 2,023
67.4% 131,191
Units
% of Total Occupied
Units.
36.4%
37.7%
41.2%
25.4%
30.1%
32.6%
Total Occupied Units
9,130
17,397
6,066
568
6,726
402,067
' of Mumeta.
4. Age and Housing Stock Conditions
The age of housing is commonly used as a measure of when housing may begin to
require major repairs. In general, housing units over 30 years old are likely to exhibit
signs of rehabilitation needs, such as new roofing, foundation work, and new plumbing.
Year Built
Apd11990 - January 2000
1989 to March 1990
1985 to 1988
1980 to 1984
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1940 to 1949
Table 4-11
Age of Housing Stock
Number of Units
7,875
2,941
5,137
995
1,361
170
13
0
1939 or eadier 42 i
% of Total
43%
16%
28%
5%
7%
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
1I. Needs * Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-13
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
As depicted in Table 4-1 I, the majority of the housing units in Temecula (92%) were
built between 1980 through 1999 and most likely are in good condition. Less than 3%
of the existing housing stock is over 30 years old. The remainder of the City's existing
housing units (approximately 8%) was built in the 1970s. Many of these units will be
30 years old during this Housing Element period. As a result, there may be a need for
additional rehabilitation financing to assist homeowners with the maintenance of their
older housing units.
5. Housing Costs
Ownership Housing
Temecula is one of the fastest growing and most prosperous communities in the Inland
Empire. With its setting amidst the wine country and location along 1-15 mid-way
between San Diego and Orange counties, Temecula receives growth impulses from
both directions. As a result, Temecula was one of the first communities to see its
residential real estate market recovering from Southem Califomia's steep recession.
According to the California Association of Realtors, housing prices in Temecula are
significantly higher than in surrounding communities and in the County. As evidenced
in Table 4-12, median home price in Temecula increased significantly between 1998
and 1999 while median prices in surrounding communities even declined slightly or
increased only nominally.
Jurisdiction
Ternecula
Hernet
Lake Elsinore
Mumeta
Perds
Riverside County
Table 4-12
Median Home Prices
June 1999 June 1998
$195,000 $157,637
$79,250 $79,500
$114,000 $114,500
$169,000 $158,000
$85,000 $84.500
$130,000 $126,000
% Change
23.7%
-0.3%
-3.95%
7.0%
0.6%
3.2%
Reflective of the housing stock, most housing sales in Temecula are for three- and four-
bedroom single-family homes. During the 18-month period between January 1999 and
June 2000, 1,188 housing sales were executed, of which 85% were three- and four-
bedroom single-family homes. Housing units in Temecula are sold for a wide range of
prices. As shown in Table 4-13, four-bedroom homes are sold from $95,000 to
$645,000, indicating that some older housing units are sold for much lower prices while
newer and custom homes are priced much higher. Condominium sales in Temecula
exhibited similar paRems of wide price ranges.
II. Needs · Jutyl7, 2000 Page 4-14
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Single-Family
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
4-bedrcom
5-bedroom
6.-bedroom
Condominiums
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
4Jcedrcom
Table 4-13
Housing Sales
January 1999 through June 2000
Median Pdce
$126,250
$153,000
$190,000
$254,000
$252,000
Median Pdce
$107,000
$120,000
$148.000
Pdce Range
$47,000-$750,000
$68,181 -$560,000
$95,000-$645,000
$152,000-$740,000
$198,000,$400,000
Pdce Range
$72,000-$165,854
$69,500-$142,500
$148,000
Source: Los Angeles Time, Dataquick Service
Units Sold
52
553
456
81
5
Units Sold
15
25
1
% of Total
4.5%
48.2%
39.8%
7.1%
0.1%
% of Total
36.6%
61.0%
0.4%
Housing affordability is dependent upon income and housing costs. According to the
HUD guidelines for 2000, the median family income (MFI) for a family of four in
Riverside County is $47,400. Based on this median income, the following maximum
income limits for a four-person family can be established:
Very Low Income households (0 to 50% of MFI) eam a maximum of $23,700
Low Income households (51 to 80% of MFI) earn a maximum of $37,900
Moderate Income households (81 to 120% of MFI) earn a maximum of $56,900
Median Income households earn $47,400
Income Category
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Median
Table 4-14
Affordable Housing Costs by Income Category
Riverside County
Maximum
income
$23,700
$37,900
$56,900
$47,400
Monthly Affordable
Housing Cost
$592
$947
$1,422
$1,185
UtiliWrraxes/
Maintenance
$100
$150
$200
$200
Affordable i Affordable
Rent i Home Pdce
$492 r $78,200
$797 I $126,650
$1,222 i $194,200
$985 ~ $156,500
Maximum affordable home price based on a 30-year loan at 7.5% interest, assuming that the homebuyer can afford to pay a
10% downpayment and dosing costs.
Assuming that the potential homebuyer within each income group has sufficient credit,
downpayment (10%), and maintains affordable housing expenses (i.e. spends no more
than 30% of their gross income on the mortgage, taxes, and insurance), the maximum
affordable home price can be determined for each income group. Table 4-14 shows the
maximum housing prices affordable to the various income groups. Based on the
median home prices shown in Table 4-13, housing ownership opportunities are
available in Temecula for Low and Moderate Income households, although Very Low
Income households would not be able to afford median prices housing in the City.
[1. Needs * July I T, 2000 Page 4-15
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Most condominiums are affordable to both Low and Moderate Income households. In
addition, mos,t two-bedroom houses and some three- and four-bedroom houses are
affordable to Low and Moderate Income households.
Rental Housing
Current rental information for private rental units in Temecula was obtained through a
1998 market study conducted for Old Town Temecula. The study surveyed 13
apartment complexes containing a total of 3,120 units. The large majority (70%) of the
units in Temecula are two-bedroom units. In 1998, the average rent in Temecula was
$515 for a one-bedroom unit, $625 for a two-bedroom unit, and $695 for a three-
bedroom unit.
Based on the household income limits identified in Table 4-14, a Low Income
household can affordable to pay $797 per month, while a Moderate Income household
can afford to pay up to $1,222 per month. Based on these limits, Low and Moderate
Income households can afford to live in Temecula even if rents have increased
somewhat since the survey. As Very Low Income households can only afford to pay
$492 a month in rent, they will not be able to afford market rate rants without paying in
excess of 30% of their gross income. Often large households with Very Low Incomes
have to resort to smaller units in order to save on housing costs, but overcrowding
typically occurs.
6. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
Inventory of Assisted Housing
State Housing Element law requires cities to prepare an inventory including all assisted
multi-family rental units which are eligible to convert to non-low income housing uses
due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use
restrictions. Under Housing Element law, this inventory is required to cover an
evaluation period following the statutory due date of the Housing Element (July 1,
2000). Thus, this at-risk housing analysis covers the period from July 1, 2000 through
June 30, 2010.
Table 4-15 provides an inventory of the City's assisted multi-family housing stock by
various government assistance programs. This inventory includes all multi-family
rental units assisted under federal, state, and/or local programs, including HUE}
programs, state and local bond programs, redevelopment programs, and local density
bonus or direct assistance programs.
1I. Needs * Julyl 7, 2000 Page 4-16
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Table 4-15
Assisted Housing Inventory and At Risk Status
Project
Temecula Villas
(28837 Pujol St.)
Woodcreek
(4220 Morago Rd.)
Rancho California
{29210 Stonewood
Rd.)
Rancho West
(4220 Main St.)
Rancho Creek
(28464 Felix Valdez
Rd.)
Mission Village
Apartments
(28497 Pujol St.)
Oaktree
(42176 Lindley Lane)
Creekside
(28955 Pujo(St.)
Total Prolect
Units
96
344
55
Program
Section 8 New Const.
Mortgage Revenue
Bond
Section 8 New Const.
Section 221(d)4
150 i RDN
] HOME
30 RDA
38-existing
38-under
construction
40
i48
Source: City of Ternecula, September 1999.
RDA Revenue Bond
FmHA New Const.
Section 515/Section 8
FmHA New Con.
Section 515
Eadiest i # of Units At
Conversion Date i Risk
6/1999 48
(expired)
3/31/2003 71
3/15/2004 55
4/8/2026 150
9~30~2026 30
7/16/2028 38-existing
38-under
construeion
818/2004 40
8/22/2036 43
The Section 8 contract for one apartment complex, Temecula Villas (28837 Pujol
Street), expired in June 1999. The owner has not entered into an agreement with the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency to accept additional funding in exchange for
preserving the affordability of the units, nor are Section 8 vouchers accepted at the
complex. The owner plans on renting the units at market rate.
At-Risk Housing Conversion Potential
Oaktree, Woodcreek, and Rancho Califomia complexes are the only housing
developments that may be at risk between July 1, 2000 and June 30, 2010. The details
of each project are discussed below.
Oaktree: The 40-unit Oaktree project was financed through FmHA-New Construction
Section 515 loans. While this project has the potential to expire in 2004 with
prepayment of the loan, due to the nature of the program it is extremely unlikely that
the Oaktree project will be permitted to prepay and convert to market-rate rents. To
qualify for prepayment and conversion, the owner of the project must prove that the
affordable, rural housiiig provided by the project is not needed. Discussions with
FmHA representatives indicate that few farm housing projects have ever been able to
document that affordable housing is no longer needed. Therefore, the affordable
housing restrictions on Oaktree are expected to continue for the entire duration of the
loan. Also, additional incentives are often offered to owners of affordable housing
financed under the FmHA New Construction Section 515 program to encourage the
continued affordability of the units. Since it is not anticipated that the Oaktree project
II. Needs · Julyl 7, 2000 Page 4-17
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
will convert during the Housing Element planning period due the constraints described
above, preservation of this affordable housing complex is not analyzed below.
Woodcreek: The 344-unit Woodcreek project was financed with a multi-family
mortgage revenue bond. Under the bond program, 20% (71) of the project units are
required to be reserved for Low Income tenants for the greater of 15 years or as long as
the bond is outstanding. The Low Income use restriction on the 71 units is due to
expire in March 2003.
Rancho California: This 55-unit project was developed with a HUD-insured Section
221(d)4 mortgage loan. This mortgage loan maintains a market rate interest and places
no deed restriction on the project to maintain the units as affordable housing. To ensure
affordability of these units, HUD provided a 20-year Section 8 contract for the 55 units
subsidizing the rent payments by tenants. This Section 8 contract is due to expire in
March 2004.
Preservation and Replacement of At-Risk Housing Cost Analysis
Preservation of the at-risk projects can be achieved in four ways: 1) facilitate transfer of
ownership of the at-risk properties to non-profit organizations; 2) purchase of
affordability covenants; 3) provide rental assistance to tenants using funding sources
other than Section 8; and 4) construct or purchase replacement affordable units.
Transfer of Ownership: By transferring ownership of at-risk projects to non-profit
housing organizations, long-term, low income use of those projects can be secured, and
the project will be eligible for a greater range of government assistance programs. Of
the two at-risk housing development within Temecula, transferring ownership to a non-
profit is only appropriate in the case of Rancho Califomia. Since only 20% of the
Woodcreek complex is affordable to lower income households, it is not cost-effective
to purchase the entire apartment complex.
Table 4-16 presents the estimated market value for the Rancho Califomia project to
establish an order of magnitude for assessing preservation costs. According to
development experts, current market values for the at-risk project can be estimated on
the basis of the project's potential annual income, operating expenses and building
condition. As shown in Table 4-16, the estimated market value of the Rancho
California project is $4 million.
However, unless some form of mortgage assistance is available to the non-profit
organizations, rental income from the lower income tenants would not likely be
adequate to cover the mortgage payment, and rental subsidy would be required.
II. Needs * Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-18
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Size of Units
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
4-Bedroom
Total
Gross Operating Incoroe
Annual Operating
Net Annual Income
Market Value
Table 4-16
Value of At-Risk Housing Units
Rancho California Apartments
Number of Units in Project
22
22
11
55
$373,065
$37,307
$335,759
$4,029,102
Market valve for Rancho California Aparanents is estirnated with fie following assumpbens:
1. Old Town Temec~la Market Study - average market rent for a 2-bedroorn is $5I 5, 2-
bedroom is $625, 3~:Jroom is $695, and a 4-bedmorn is estimated to be 10% higher
than a 3-bedroom for an average rent of $765.
2. Vacancy Rate = 5%
3. Annvelngeratingexpenses=10%ofgrossrevenues
4. Market Value = Annual net project income * murdplicaffi3n factor.
5, Mutij0iicaifonfacforforbeildingsingoodtoexvellentconditmin12.
Purchase of Affordability Covenant: Another option to preserve the affordability of
at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects
as low income housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the
remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the tenant's rent payment or Section 8
subsidy amount from HUD to market levels.
To purchase the affordability covenant on the at-risk projects, an incentive package
should include interest subsides at or below what the property owners can obtain in the
open market. To enhance the attractiveness of the incentive package, the interest
subsidies may need to be combined with additional rent subsidies.
Rent Subsidy: A total of 55 units in the Rancho California project currently maintain
Section 8 contracts that are due to expire within the time frame of this Housing
Element. Should annual renewal of project-based Section 8 contracts become
unavailable in the future, tenant-based rent subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers and
certificates may be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Also, should the
owner of Woodcreek decide to convert the 71 units into market rate housing, Section 8,
or other forms of rent subsidies may be required to assist the existing tenants.
Under the HUD Section 8 program, assistance is only available to Very Low Income
households (up to 50% of the County Median Family Income). Thus the discrepancy
between the Fair Market Rent for a unit and the housing cost affordable to a Very Low
Income household is used to estimate the amount of rent subsidy required for that unit.
Table 4-17 estimates the rent subsidies required to preserve the affordability of the
assisted units to Very Low Income households. Based on the estimates and
assumptions shown in this table, approximately $191,664 in rent subsidies would be
required annually to preserve the Rancho Califomia units, and approximately $168,246
1[. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-19
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
in annual rent subsidies would be required to preserve the Woodcreek units, for a total
of $329,910.
Table 4-17
Rent Subsidies Required
Section 8/Subsidized At-dsk Units Rancho California Woodcreek
2-Bedroom 22 58
3-Bedroom 22 13
4-Bedroom 11 0
Total 55 71
Total Monthly Rent Income Supported by Affordable $26,180 $31,383
Housing Cost of Very Low income Households
Total Month Rent Allows by Fair Market Rents $42,152 $45,403
Total Annual Subsidies Required $191,664 $168,246'
Notes:
1. Unit mix of Woodcrook Apartment units is based on propodions in the entire project.
2. A two-bedroom unit is assumed to be occupied by a throo-person household, a three-
bedroom unit by a four-person household, and a fcor-bedroom unit by a five-person
household.
Based on 1999 Median Family Income in Riverside County, affordable monthly housing
cost for a three-person Very Low Income household is $431, for a four-person household
is $490, and a five-person household is $538.
1999 Fair Market Rents in Riverside County is $597 for a twc-bedroom unit, $829 for a
three-bedroom unit, and $980 for a four-bedroom unit.
Replacement Cost Analysis/Purchase of Similar Units: The cost of developing new
housing depends on a variety of factors such as density, size of units, location and
related land costs, and type of construction. Based on discussions with a local
developer with recent experience building multi-family housing within Temecula, it
would be difficult to development multi-family rental housing for less than
approximately $100,000 per unit. This cost estimate includes all costs associated with
development. To replace the 126 affordable units in Rancho California and Woodcreek
apartments would therefore require at least $12,600,000 ($5.5 million for Rancho
California and $7.1 million for Woodcreek), provided that vacant or underutilized
multi-family residential sites would be available for construction of replacement
housing.
Instead of constructing new at-risk affordable units, similar existing units may be
purchased to replace those units. Based on the value analysis for the Rancho California
apamnents, an existing unit would cost approximately $73,250. To replace the 126
affordable units in Rancho Califomia and Woodcreek through the purchase of similar
existing units, the total cost would be approximately $9.2 million ($4 million for
Rancho Califomia and $5.2 million for Woodcreek).
Cost Comparison
The cost to build new housing to replace the 126 at-risk units within the Rancho
California and Woodcreek projects is high, with an estimated total cost of close to
11. Needs · Julyl7, 2000 Page 4-20
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
$12.6 million. This cost estimate is higher than the cost to preserve the units by
transferring ownership to a non-profit (in the case of Rancho California) or purchasing
126 similar existing units, which is estimated at approximately $9.2 million.
Use of other forms of rent subsidies to replace rental assistance, such as Section 8, does
not ensure long-term unit affordability. The cost associated with rent subsidies is
lower, requiring a total of approximately $359,910 annually.
Overall, transferring project ownership to non-profit organizations combined with
financing techniques to lower the mortgage payment, as well as purchase of
affordability covenants, are probably the most cost-effective means to preserving the at-
risk housing projects in Temecula.
II. Needs · July l 7, 2000 Page 4-21
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
III. CONSTRAINTS ON HOUSING PRODUCTION
Market, governmental, and infrastructure factors pose constraints to the provision of adequate
and affordable housing. These constraints may result in housing that is not affordable to Very
Low, Low, and Moderate Income households, or may render residential construction
economically infeasible for developers.
A. Market Constraints
1. Land and Construction Costs
A major cost associated with developing new housing is the cost of land. Most vacant
residential parcels in Temecula have been subdivided, while others are contained within
planned communities. In the Meadow View area, where parcels begin at ½ acre and
increase in size, the average price of a vacant parcel ranges from $60,000 to over
$100,000. Larger tracts of raw land are available in the surrounding sphere of influence
and wine country at a lower cost per acre. However, the potential development of this
raw land is constrained by the City's and County's desire to preserve the agricultural
lands, as evident in the respective General Plans.
Another major cost associated with building a new house is the cost of building
materials, which can comprise up to 50% of the sales price of a home. Construction
costs for wood frame single-family construction of average to good quality range from
$50 to $70 per square foot, while custom homes and traits with extra amenities may run
higher. Costs for wood frame, multi-family construction average about $50 per square
foot excluding parking.
Both the costs of land and construction of a new house are passed on to the homebuyer.
As a result, an increase in the cost of land or construction materials will result in a
higher housing price for the purchaser.
2. Availability of Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required
to disclose infonnation on the disposition of loan applications. Overall, financing is
generally available to homebuyers and homeowners in Temecula. As depicted in Table
4-18, in 1997 overall, 73% of the 1,031 applications submitted for conventional home
purchase loans were approved (though not all applicants accepted the loan [i.e.
originated the loan]), and only 12% were denied, with the remaining 14% of the
applications withdrawn or closed for incompleteness. However, lower income
applicants had a lower rate of approval in comparison to the higher income applicants.
The disparity between income groups with the availability of funding is also apparent in
the approval rate for conventional home improvement loans. Overall, home
improvement loans have lower approval rates. In 1997, only 54% of the 430
applications submitted for conventional improvement loans were approved, indicating
IlL Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-22
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
the continued need for City assistance in providing home improvement loans,
especially for lower income applicants.
Table 4-18
Disposition of Conventional Loan Applications: 1997
Applicant Income ~ Home Purchase Loans
i Total I % % ~ % Total
i! Apprns i Odginated/ Denied i Other Appl'ns
Approved*
Low Income 106 ! 68.9% 14.1% ~ 17.0% 34
(<80% MFI)
Moderate Income 183 i 70.5% 16.4% ~ 13.1% 108 38.0%
(80-119% MFI)
Upper Income i 686 ] 76.7% 10.8% 12.5% 288 60.1%
(>+120% MFI)
Not Available ! 56 i 51.8% 16.1% 32.1% 0 0
Total i 1,031 i 73.4% 12.4% 14.1% 430 54.2%
* Odginated Loan is a loan that has been approved and accepted by the apelicent.
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for 1997 Tabulated with the Centrax software.
Home Improvement Loans
% %
Ohginated/ Denied
Approved'
55.9% 32.4%
56.5%
34,4%
0
39.8%
% Other
11.8%
5.6%
5.6%
0
6.0%
As shown in Table 4-19 below, lower income applicants fared better in acquiring
govemment backed home purchase loans. Govemment backed loans include FHA-
insured, VA-guaranteed, and FmHA-insured loans. Overall, 77% of the loan
applications were approved (though not all were originated). Moderate Income
applicants had a higher rate of approval (81%) when compared to the Upper Income
applicants (77%). Overall, government backed home improvement loans had a very
low average rate of approval (38% overall approval rate), again indicating a need for
further assistance for home improvement projects.
Low Income
(<80% MFI)
Mederate Income
(80-119% MFI)
Upper Income
(>+120% MFI}
Not Available
Total
Table 4-19
Disposition of Government Backed Loan Applications: 1997
Applicant Income
Total
AppFns
116
328
380
Home Purchase Loans
% %
Odginated/ Denied
Approved*
74.1% 12,1%
80,8% 10.7%
76.8% 14.2%
37 59.5% 13.5%
861 77.2% 12,5%
%
Other
13.8%
8.5%
8.9%
27.0%
10.2%
Home Improvement Loans
Total % %
Appl'ns Originated/ Denied
Approved*
12 0% i 66.7%
58 36.2% i 39.7%
101 45.5% i 33.7%
6 16.7% i 83.3%
17.7 38.4% i 39.5%
· Ohginated Loan is a loan that has been approved and accepted by the applicant.
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for 1997. Tabulated with the Centrax software.
%
Other
33.3%
24.1%
20.8%
0%
22.0%
IIl. Constraints * July 17, 2000 Page 4-23
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
B. Governmental Constraints
1. Land Use Controls
The Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plan and corresponding Development
Code provide for a range of residential types and densities dispersed throughout the
City. The current Land Use Element has designated 10,295 acres (63%) of the City's
total land inventory for residential uses, including: single-family homes, multi-family
units, and mobile homes. Residential densities in Temecula cover a wide spectram,
including the following categories:
· Hillside Residential (HR) (0-0.1 unit/net acre)
· Very Low Density Residential (VL) (0.2-0.4 unit/net acre)
· Low Density Residential-1 (L-I) (0.4-1 unit/net acre)
· Low Density Residential-2 (L-2) (1-2 units/net acre)
· Low Medium Density Residential (LM) (3-6 units/net acre)
· Medium Density Residential (M) (7-12 units/net acre)
· High Density Residential (H) (13-20 units/net acre)
These residential categories provide for a range of housing types to be developed in
Temecula. The City has set target levels for density for the Hillside (0.1 unit/acre);
Very Low (0.3 units/acre); Low (1.3 units/acre); and Low Medium (4.5 units/acre)
Density Residential designations. Only projects that provide amenities or public
benefits will be allowed to exceed the target level. The City has not set densiW target
levels for the Medium and High Density Residential categories in order to facilitate the
development of affordable housing.
2. Residential Development Standards
Temecula's residential development and parking standards are summarized in Tables 4-
20 and 4-21. Residential standards have been adopted by the City to protect the safety
and welfare of its residents.
The Development Code and General Plan allow for modification and flexibility in the
development standards through the provision of a Village Center Overlay and Planned
Development Overlay. Flexibility in the planning for overlay areas is allowed to
promote a greater range of housing opportunities within the City. Diversityof housing,
including affordable housing is one of the performance standards for the Village Center
Overlay. The Planned Development Overlay Zoning District also encourages the
provision of additional housing opportunities forthe community. Additional flexibility
in development standards is also provided in the Development Code through the use of
variable setbacks. This flexibility allows for the creative site planning, especially for
irregular sites.
Ill. Constrmnts · July 17, 2000 Page4-24
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Table 4-20
Residential Development Standards
Minimum Net Lot Area (square feet)
Minimum Average Net Lot Area per Dwelling Unit
Maximum Dwelling Units Per Acre~
LOT DIMENSIONS
Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Uee
Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Une
Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area
Minimum Average Width
Minimum Lot Depth
SETBACKS
Minimum Front Yard2
Minimum Comer Side Yard
Minimum Intehor Side Yard3
Minimum Rear Yard
Maximum Height
Maximum % of Lot Coverage
Open Space Required
Private Open Space/Per Unit
Notes:
HR i VL
400,000 i 100,000
10 acres
0.1 0.3
50~. 4Oft
40ft. 30ft
100ft 100ft.
100ft. 80~.
150fi. 120ft
40ft. 25~.
40ft. 15ft
10ft. 10ft.
20ft. 20ft.
35ft 35ft
10% 20%
90% 70%
NA NA
L-1 L-2 i LM M
40,000 20,000 i 7,200 7,200
1.0 acre i 0.5 ac~e i 7,200 s.f. i 3,600 s.f.
1.0 1.3 ~ 4.5 12.0
40ft 30ft. 30ft. 30~.
30~. 25fi. 20ft. 20~.
70~. 50ft. 50ft 40~.
70~. 60~. 50~. 50~.
100ft 9011. 80ft 100ft
25ft. 25ft.2 20ft2 20ft2
15ft 15~. '15ft 15fl.
10ft. 10ft. Vadable~ Veqable3
20~. 20ft. 20~. 20ft.
35ft. 35ft 35ft 40ft
25% 25% 35% 35%
60% 60% 25 % 25%
NA NA NA 200
H
7,200
2,400 s.f.
20.0
30ft.
20N.
30ft.
50ft
lOOft
2Oft2
15ft
Vadable~
20ft
50ft
30%
30%
150
1. Affordable housing and congregate Care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the provisions included in Sealion
17.06.050.H of the City of Temecula Development Code.
2. Variable Front Year Setbacks: In order to allow for a more interesting visual image and more flexible site planning yahable setbacks may
be permitted in the L-2, LM, M and H disthds. Front yard setbacks shall have an average of at leest twenty feet. Garages with entrances not
faring the front yard area may be setback a minimum of 10 feet. Other pertions of a structure may have a front yard setback of a minimum of
10 feet; however, the average setback of 20 feet shall be malntajned.
3. Variable Side Yard Seffiacks: In the LM zoning disthct, the combined side yard setback for both sides must equal at least 15 feet with one
side having at least 10 feet to provide potential vehicular access to the mar of the property and shall be located on the same side as the
dhveway. In the M and H zoning districts, yahable side yard setharcs may be permitted provided the sum of the side year setbacks is not
less than 10 feet and the distanCe between adjacent structures is not less than 10 feet. This permits a zero lot line arrangement with a zero
setback on one yard and 10 feet on the opposite side yard.
Source: The City of Temecula Development Code.
Table 4.21
Parking Space Requirements
Land Use
Single-family Unit
Duplex, Thplex
Multi-family Units (12 units or less) - 3 or fewer
bedrooms
Multi-family Units (13 or more units) -3 or fewer
beqreoms
Mobilehome Park
Second Unit
Granny Flat
Senior Citizens Housing Complex/COngregate
Care
Source: City of Temecula Development Code
Required Parking Spaces
2 enclosed spaCes
2 covered spaces/units, plus 1 guest spaoo/4 units
· 2-5 units: 2 cevereq spaces/units, plus 2 guest spaCes
· 6-12 units: 2 cevemd spaces/unit, plus 3 guest spaces
· 1 covered space and ',/, uncovereq space for each 1 -bedroom unit;
· I covereq and 1 uncovered spaCa for each 2-bedroom unit;
· 2 covered spaces and ~ uncovered space for each 3-bedroom (or
more) unit;
plus 1 guest space/6 units, with a minimum of 4 guest spaces.
1 covered space/trailer site, plus 1 guest space/2 trailer sites
· 1 covered space for each 2-pedroore (or smaller) unit;
· 2 covered spaces for each 3-bedteem (or larger) unit.
1 uncovered space/unit
Y, covered space/unit, plus 1 uncovered guest space per 5 units
l[l. Constraints · July I7, 2000 Page 4-25
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
To provide for additional opportunities for affordable housing, the Development Code and
General Plan also allow senior, congregate care, and affordable housing in some non-
residential zoning districts. Senior housing is allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial,
Community Commercial, Service Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial, and
Professional Office zoning districts. Congregate care facilities are allowed in the
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial,
Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Affordable housing
projects are allowed in the Professional Office zoning district.
3. Provisions for a Variety ofHousing
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be
made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the
development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including mobile
homes, congregate care facilities, senior housing, emergency shelters, and transitional
housing. The following paragraphs describe the City's provision for these types of
housing.
Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing: Temecula allows for the provision of
manufactured housing in all of its residential zoning districts. Mobile home parks are
allowed with a conditional use permit in all of the residential zoning districts.
Manufactured housing must be certified according to the National Mobile Home
Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and conform to all other development
and use requirements applicable to the primary units in the zoning district. The units
must stand on a permanent foundation and the materials used for the siding must be
approved by the Planning Director.
Senior Housing/Affordable Housing: Senior and affordable housing are permitted in
the High, Medium, and Low Medium Density Residential zoning districts, with
approval of a development plan. The maximum density allowed for senior housing that
complies with the City's affordable housing provisions, including the density bonus, is:
30 units/acre for High Density Residential, 20 units/acre for Medium Density
Residential, and 8 units/acre for Low Medium Density Residential. For the approved
Specific Plans, the maximum density, including the density bonus, is not allowed to
exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Senior housing is also allowed in
the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Service Commercial,
Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts. Senior housing
constructed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone will be developed consistent with
the development and performance standards allowed in the Medium Density
Residential zoning district. For the Community Commemial, Service Commemial,
Highway/Tourist Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts, senior housing
will be developed consistent with the development and performance standards allowed
for the High Density Residential zoning district.
Affordable housing developments are entitled to receive at least a density bonus of 25%
in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing
lII. Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-26
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
projects, including the density bonus, are: 30 units/acre for High Density Residential,
18 units/acre for Medium Density Residential, and 8 units/acre for Low Medium
Density Residential development. For the approved Specific Plans, the maximum
density, including the density bonus, is not allowed to exceed 50% of the target density
in the planning area. Affordable housing projects are also allowed in the Professional
Office zoning district up to 30 units/acre with a conditional use permit. Affordable
housing projects, including affordable senior projects may also be granted at least one
development concession by the City as an incentive for the provision of affordable
housing. The potential concessions include:
· An increase in the amount of required lot coverage;
· A modification to the setback or required yard provisions;
· An increase in the maximum allowable building height;
· A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking;
· A reduction in the amount of on-site landscaping, except that no reduction in
on-site recreational amenities may be approved unless the affordable housing is
in close proximity with easy access to a public park with recreational amenities;
· A reduction in the minimum lot area; or
· Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with
the approval of a conditional use permit.
Congregate Care: Congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to the density
requirements as long as all of the development standards for the zoning district are met.
Congregate care facilities are allowed in the Low-2 Density Residential, Low Medium
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential,
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial,
Service Commercial, and Professional Office zoning districts.
Second Units: The City of Temecula allows second units in all of the residential
districts where a detached single-family unit exists and the owner occupies either the
primary or secondary unit. Second units cannot be sold, but may be rented. The
second unit must be compatible with the design of the primary dwelling unit and meet
the size and parking requirements identified in the Development Code.
Emergency Shelters/Transitional Housing: Emergency shelters and transitional
housing is permitted in the Medium Density and High Density Residential districts.
These uses are also permitted in other residential districts with a conditional use permit.
Emergency shelters are also permitted with a conditional use permit in the
Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway/Tourist Commercial,
Service Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, and Light Industrial zoning
districts.
II1. Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-27
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
4. Development and Planning Fees
The cost of d~velopment is a constraint to the implementation of affordable housing
projects. Typically, the cost of developing raw land is significantly increased by the
various regulations and fees local governments impose on developers.
The City of Temecula charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of
processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. Table 4-22 summarizes
that City's planning fee requirements for residential development, while Table 4-23
depicts the City's development fees for residential development.
Comparing the cost of one jurisdiction's development and planning fees to another is
difficult since each jurisdiction calculates and applies its fee schedule in its own unique
way. While no recent studies available to the general public have been completed in
Riverside County to compare the fees charged by various jurisdictions, a 1991 County
of Riverside Administrative Office (CAO) study compared the cost of developing a 50-
unit subdivision in various communities. In this study, Temecula ranked in the top
three of jurisdictions for development fees charged.
IIL Constraints * July 17, 2000 Page 4-28
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Proiect Type
Table 4-22
Planning Fee Schedule
City of Temecula
City of Temecu~a Fee
Planning and Zoning
Conditional Use Permit - New Building ~.z3.4
Conditional Use Permit - Existing Building1
Development Agreement
Development Plan - Less than 10,000 sf (Administrative)
Development Plan - Less than 10,000 sf
Development Plan - Over 10.000 sf ~.z3,.
General Plan AmendmenFz3
Single Family Residence and Additions
Vadance1
Zoning Amendment (Text Changes, Map Changes)
Zoning Amendment (Specific Plan)
Subdivisions
Ceaificate of Land Division Compliance (fee per parcel)
Ceaificete of Land Division Compliance w/Waiver of Final Parcel
Map (fee per parcel)
Lot Une Adjustment
Merger of Continuous Parcel
Minor Change (Parcel Map)
Minor Change (Tract Map)
Pareel Map - Tentative (Residential) w/Waiver of Final Mapu.3.s
Parcel Map - Tentative (Residential) w/o Waiver of Final Map~2-3.s
Parcel Map - Vesting Tentative Mapt.z3.5
Tract Map - MultM:amily-Tentative Statuton/Condo Subdivision
Map Filing~.z3.5
Tract Map - Multi-Family-Revised StatutoP/Condo Subdivision Map
Filings.2.3.5
Tract Map - Single Family Residential Tract (Sewers)
Tract Map - Single Family Residential Tract (Sub-Surface Disposal)
~,2.3,5
Tract Map - Single Family Residential Tract (Revised Tentative
Subdivision Map) u.3,s
Tract Map Besting Tentative Single Family Residential Tract~.z3,s
Miscellaneous Chargee
CEQA (Draft EIR) ~
Old Town Architectural Review
1. Add CEQA Fee of $613+$5/gross acre (if required)
2. Add UC Regents Fee of $25 (if required) - not appliceble to duplicate applications
3. Add Traffic Study Fee of $780 (if required)
4. Add DRC Landscape Fee of $200
5. Add per lot and per gross acre fee (depends on specific projed)
Source: Temecula Abddged Application Fee Schedule (June 4,1998)
$5,837
$888
$4,550
$190
$3,540
$5,880
$5,587
$30
$1,954
$3,617
$15,578
$1,093
$837
$834
$714
$729
$741
$3,735
$3,346
$7,734
$7,085
$6.007
$6,000
$5,000
$3,861
$7,120
$20
,artment of Environmental
Health Fee
$234
$234
N/A
N/N
$136
$136
$59
N/A
$120
$61
$197
$138
N/A
$72
N/A
N/A
N/A
$389
$675
$424
$528
$203
$528
$424
$528
$395
N/A
IlL Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-29
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Development Fee
Street System Improvements
Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems
Coq~orete Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Parks and Recreational Improvements
Ubrades
Total
Source: City of Temecula, 1999
Table 4-23
Development Fees
City of Temecula
Land Use
Residential Attached
Residential Detached
Residential Attached
ResidentiaJ Detached
Residential Attached
Residential Detached
Residentia] Attached
Residential Detached
Residential Attached
Residential Detached
Residential Attached
Residential Detached
Residential Attached
Residential Detached
Fee/UnR
$517
$737
$78
$110
$119
$224
$42
$56
$1,222
$1,629
$158
$210
$2,136
$2,966
5. Building Codes and Enforcement
The City of Temecula has adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and has not
made any additional modifications to the UBC. This Code is considered to be the
minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The City is
responsible for the enforcement of the UBC.
6. Local Processing and Permit
The evaluation and review process required by City procedures contributes to the cost
of housing in that the holding costs incurred by developers during the review period are
ultimately manifested in the umt's selling price. The administrative approval process
(which includes development plans that are less than 10,000 square feet and are exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]) is administered by the
Community Development Department and other involved agencies, and does not
require review by the City Council nor Planning Commission. The average time for
administrative approval is five weeks. Once approval is given, the property owner must
submit the approved plans to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments to obtain the required permits.
Discretionary projects require review and approval by City staff, affected agencies, City
Council, and Planning Commission. The average period until a discretionary project
reaches the public hearing stage is 11 weeks. An additional five weeks may be required
after the public hearing until the final approval with associated conditions is given.
This processing time frame is not considered excessive.
The City has not adopted any special design or environmental review processes that
would add additional time to the processing period. In addition, since much of the
Ill. Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-30
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
remaining vacant residential land is contained in Specific Plan areas, the environmental
review required under CEQA has been completed and the development standards
required have been identified, expediting the approval process of projects within the
Specific Plan area.
C. State Tax Policies and Regulations
I. Article 34 ofthe California Constitution
Article 34 was enacted in 1950. It requires that low rant housing projects developed,
constructed, or acquired in any manner by any State or public agency, including cities,
receive voter approval through the referendum process. The residents of Temecula
have not passed a referendum to allow the City to develop, construct, or acquire
affordable housing.
While California Health and Safety Code further cladties the scope and applicability of
Article 34 to exclude housing projects that have deed-restriction on less than 49% of
the units or rehabilitation/reconstruction of housing projects that are currently deed-
restricted or occupied by lower income persons, Article 34 still constitutes an obstacle
for local governments to be directly involved in production of long-term affordable
housing.
2. Environmental Protection
State regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g.,
subdivision maps, use permits, etc.). Costs resulting from fees charged by local
government and private consultants needed to complete the environmental analysis, and
from delays caused by the mandated public review periods, are also added to the cost of
housing and passed on to the consumer. However, the presence of these regulations
helps preserve the environment and ensure environmental safety to Temecula's
residents. In addition, much of the remaining vacant residential land is located within
approved specific plan areas for which the required environmental review has been
completed.
D. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the cost of providing adequate
infrastructure (major and local streets; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines;
and street lighting) which is required to be built or installed in new development. In most
cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their
maintenance. The cost of these facilities is borne by developers, and is added to the cost of
new housing units, and is eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner.
Ill. Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-31
J
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
The City has experienced great levels of growth over the past few years. Due to this
growth some of the streets in Temecula are impacted by traffic generated by new
development. The City is in the process of revising its Circulation Element to address
these impacted streets. Until the cimulation system is expanded to provide a sufficient
level of service, the currently impacted circulation system will constrain the amount of new
development that can occur within the City.
In addition, two areas of the City, designated for residential uses, are partially developed
and do not have sewer service. Development of this land is limited to Very Low Density
Residential uses. The majority of the remainder of future residential development within
the City will occur in master planned communities, or on sites adjacent to existing
infrastructure. As a result, residential development will not be constrained by the lack of
sufficient infrastructure in the remainder of the City.
E. Environmental Constraints
The City is impacted by various environmental hazards that include active fault traces,
liquefaction and subsidence, steep slopes, and flooding. These natural hazards form
environmental constraints to residential development by threatening the public safety. To
protect the health, safety, and welfare of residents in Temecula, the City has adopted
regulations that limit development within areas of nigh risk, and/or require design standards
that can withstand natural hazards.
Flood Plain (FP) Overlay District: The City has applied a Flood Plain Overlay District to
portions of the City that are threatened by flooding hazards. The overlay district includes
design requirements that must be met for new construction and substantial improvement of
structures witnin the district. These design standards have been adopted to reduce the
flooding hazards threatening people and structures witnin the overlay district.
1II. Constraints · July 17, 2000 Page 4-32
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
IV. HOUSING RESOURCES
A. Sites for Housing Development
1. Vacant Sites
An important component of the Temecula Housing Element is the identification of sites
for future housing development, and evaluation of the adequacy of this site inventory in
accommodating the City's share of regional housing growth as determined by the
Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG).
As part of this Housing Element update, the City conducted a parcel-by-parcel vacant
residential site analysis, for land outside of approved specific plans, based on data
obtained ~'om the City's geographic information system (GIS). Table 4-24 quantifies
the number and type of housing units that could be accommodated on the City's vacant
residential sites located outside of approved Specific Plan areas. The City also
conducted a records search and visual survey using aerial photos and site visits to
estimate the remaining residential development capacity by number and type of housing
within the approved Specific Plans. Table 4-25 summarizes the housing development
potential remaining in the specific plan areas.
Overall, the vacant site inventory yields an estimated development capacity of 10,669
units. The residential densities identified in the Land Use Plan are generally lower than
other urbanized areas primarily due to the existing rural character of the community.
The abundance of relatively cheap land in Riverside County has allowed for the
development of housing that sells for less than the housing in Orange, Los Angeles, and
San Diego Counties.
Table 4-24
Residential Development Potential of Vacant Land Outside
Specific Plan Areas
Density Range
0,0.1 DU/AC
0.2,0.4 DU/AC
0.5-2 DU/AC
3.6 DU/AC
7-12 DU/AC
13-20 DU/AC
General Plan Designations
Hillside
Very Low
Low
Low Medium
Medium
High
Total
Target Density Target Income Group
0.1 DU/AC Upper
0.3 DU/AC Upper
1.3 DU/AC Upper
4.5 DU/AC Moderate
12 DU/AC* Moderate
20 DU/AC* LowNery Low
Vacant
Acreage
47
1,089
218
539
167
47
2,107
Net Dwelling
Units
5
327
283
2,426
2,004
940
5,985
· The City of Temecula allows the development of Medium and High Density residential land at the maximurn density.
Source: City of Temecula, September 1999.
IV. Housing Resources · July 17, 2000 Page 4-33
CITY OF TEMECLrLA Housing Element
The Temecula Development Code allows for an increase in density in the High,
Medium, and Low Medium residential designations if the development is senior
housing, affordable housing or a congregate care facility. Densities for senior housing
may be increased in High Density to 30 units/acre, in Medium Density to 20 units/acre,
and in Low Medium Density to 8 units/acre. Density bonuses of at least 25% may also
be granted for affordable housing projects, potentially increasing the maximum density,
including density bonus, to 30 units/acre in High Density, 18 units/acre in Medium
Density, and 8 units/acre in Low Medium Density. Density bonuses may also be
granted to Specific Plans areas, as long as the maximum density, including the bonus,
does not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area.
Table 4-25
Remaining Approved Residential Development for Existing Specific Plans
Speo~c Plan/Land Low Density
Use Designations~ (.4-2 DU/AC)
(Target Income) (Upper)
Cam Dos Vetdes 16
Margadta Village 19
Paloma Del Sol 0
Rancho Highlands 0
Westside i 0
Total ~ 35
Low Medium/ Medium High
Medium Density Density
(2-5 DU/AC) (5-8 DU/AC)
(Upper) (Upper)
226 0
351 i 764
917 i 941
01 0
OF 0
1.494 I 1,705
Land use categories titles for Specific Plans vary from those used in the Devalo;
Very High
High Density2 Densityz
(8-14 DU/AC) (14-20 DU/AC)
(Moderate) (Low/Very Low)
0, 0
175 0
0 i 590
0 i 383
0 i 3023
175 ~ 1,275
,ment Code,
Total
Units
242
1,309
2,448
383
302
4,684
2 The antidpated density for High Density Residential in edopled Spedtic Plans, except for the Westside Specific Plan, is 11.6
DU/AC and 15.8-16.2 DU/AC for Very High Density Residential.
3 The Westside Specific Plan allows 13 to 20 units per acre.
· The Old Town Specific Plan is a redevalopment plan for the Old Town Distdct and does not identify a specific number of housing
units that will be built.
Source: City of Temecula, September 1999
2. Targeted Sites
Within the Old Town Specific Plan area, the Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency has
identified several sites with the potential for residential redevelopment. Currently, the
Redevelopment Agency is securing site control of three sites, totaling 6.2 acres. While
the scope of housing development to occur on these sites has not been determined,
given the Agency involvement, some form of affordable housing development can be
expected.
3. Second Units
In addition to development on vacant land, the City recognizes the potential for
additional new development of affordable housing in the form of second units. The
City has incorporated development standards for second units into its Development
Code. The Code allows for second umts in all residential zoning districts where there is
an existing owner-occupied single-family detached dwelling unit if the following
conditions are met:
IV. Housing Resources * July 17, 2000 Page 4-34
CITY OF TEMECLrLA
Housing Element
· The unit may be rented, but not sold;
An attached second unit's floor area is no more than 400 square feet, and does
not exceed 30% of the floor area of the primary residential unit;
· A detached second unit has a floor area between 400 and 1,200 square feet;
· The application for the second unit is signed by the owner of the parcel and
primary residential dwelling unit;
· The design of the second unit is compatible with the primary dwelling unit and
the surrounding neighborhood; and
· There is one covered parking space for each two-bedroom (or smaller) second
unit or two covered parking spaces for each three-bedroom (or larger) second
unit.
Residential Development Potential Compared with Temecula's Regional Housing
Needs
The WRCOG has adopted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for its
member cities. For Temecula, WRCOG has established the City's share of regional
housing needs as 7,798 additional units for the period of January 1,1998 to June 30,
2005, as of the writing of this Drafl Housing Element. Table 4-26 shows the
breakdown of these 7,798 dwelling units into income categories.
Housing units constructed and issued certificates of occupancy between January 1,
1998 and June 30, 2000 can also be counted toward fulfilling the RHNA for this
Housing Element cycle. According to City records, a total of 1,408 new single-family
dwelling units and 834 multi-family dwelling units have been approved, issued building
permits, or constructed since January I, 1998, as of the writing of this Draft Housing
Element. Of these newly approved or constructed housing units, 38 are part of the
Mission Village Apartments affordable housing development. One half (19 units) of
these 38 units will be affordable to Very Low Income households, and the remainder
(19 units) will be affordable to Low Income households. Two senior apamuent
projects, at densities of 30 units/acre, have been approved for a total of 385 units.
Based on the allowable density, these senior units could be affordable to Very Low
Income households. Since the units are larger than the average unit and include
additional amenities, the actual rent will be higher than typically found in units at a
density of 30 units/acre and are assumed to be affordable to Low Income households.
Based on the housing cost and affordability analysis contained in Section II of this
Housing Element, 50% of the remaining 411 newly constructed multi-family units will
most likely be affordable to Low Income households and 50% affordable to Moderate
Income households.
IV. Housing Resources · July 17, 2000 Page 4-35
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
Table 4-26
Regional Housing Growth Need by Income Group
i Total RHNA
Income Group i (1/1/1998-6/30/2005)
Very Low Income' '. 1,403
Low Income ] . 1,014
Moderate Income ! 1,716
Upper Income i 3,665
Total i 7,798
Housing Units
Constmcted/Approved
( 1/1/1998-6130/1999)
19
610
510
1,103
2,242
RHNA
Remaining
1,384
404'
1,206
2,562
5,556 '
Site Inventory
Feasible Units
Capacity
2,215
4,605
3,849
10,669
· Affordable housing projects within the High Density Residential zone may quality for a density bonus that would increase the
overall density to 30 unitsJacre, thereby providing housing affordable to Very Low Income households.
Source: WRCOG, June1999; City of Temecula, July 1999.
Of the 1,408 single-family housing units, 189 units were developed at densities less
than eight units/acre, and as such are affordable to Upper Income households. One
quarter of the remaining 1,219 single-family homes are projected to be affordable to
Moderate Income households since the 1999 median cost for a house in Temecula is
$195,000 and Moderate Income households can afford approximately $193,000 for a
home. The remainder of the newly constructed single-family houses are affordable to
Upper Income households. Of the remaining 5,556 RHNA units, 2,994 will need to be
affordable to Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income households. Table 4-26 compares
the City's RHNA as determined by WRCOG, the affordability level of housing units
cons~'ucted since January 1998, and development capacity in the City.
The City's site inventory demonstrates the availability of adequate sites to adch:ess the
projected growth need for lower income groups. However, the difficulties of producing
housing affordable to Very Low Income households is acknowledged in Section II of
this Housing Element. The site inventory indicates a capacity of 940 units on
properties outside of a Specific Plan and 302 units within the Westside Specific Plan
area, with a High Density zoning allowing 13 to 20 units per acre. Development in the
City's High Density zone is permitted to occur at densities of 20 units/acre, which can
be increased to 30 units/acre with a density bonus, potentially creating housing
affordable to Very Low Income households. Density bonuses for senior and affordable
housing may also be permitted within approved Specific Plan areas as long as the
maximum density, including density bonus, does not exceed 50% of the target density
in the planning area.
IV. Housing Resources · July 17, 2000 Page4-36
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
B. Financial Resources
1. Redevelopment Set-Aside Fund
State Redevelopment Law provides the mechanism whereby cities and counties within
the state can, through adoption of an ordinance, establish a redevelopment agency. The
Agency's primary purpose is to provide the legal and financial mechanism necessary to
address blighting conditions in the community through the formation of a
redevelopment project area(s). Of the various means permitted under State Law for
financing redevelopment implementation, the most useful of these provisions is tax
increment financing. This technique allows the assessed property valuation within the
redevelopment project area to be frozen at its current assessed level when the
redevelopment plan is adopted. As the property in the project area is improved or
resold, the tax increment revenue generated from valuation increases above the frozen
value is redistributed to the redevelopment agency to finance other redevelopment
projects.
State Redevelopment Law also requires the redevelopment agency to address housing
issues for Low and Moderate Income residents in the following ways:
· expend 20% of the tax increment revenue to increase and improve the supply of
Low and Moderate Income housing;
· replace Low and Moderate Income housing which is destroyed as a result of a
redevelopment project (replacement housing obligation); and
ensure that a portion of all hgusing constructed or substantially rehabilitated in a
redevelopment project area be affordable to Low and Moderate Income
households (inclusionary obligation).
Prior to Temecula's incorporation, the County of Riverside established a
Redevelopment Project on July 12, 1988 with the adoption of Redevelopment Plan No.
1-1988. The Project area extends from Interstatel5/State Route 79 interchange north to
the City limits. The Old Town is included within the Project area. After incorporation,
the City of Temecula assumed responsibility for administering the Project area.
Pursuant to State law, the Temecula Redevelopment Agency has established a
Redevelopment Housing Fund by setting aside 20% of the tax increment revenue. The
Agency anticipates an annual deposit of about $1.4-1.6 million in tax increment over a
five-year period, for a total deposit of approximately $7.7 million. Based on the
required 20% set-aside, approximately $1.5 million will be available during the five-
year period for housing activities. Since set-aside funds are a function of property tax
revenues, the amount of future deposits will depend on factors such as market
conditions and the timing of new taxable development.
IV. HousingResources*July 17,2000 Page4-37
CITY OF TEMECULA Housing Element
State law sets forth a variety of options for localities to expend their housing funds,
including:
· Land disposition and write-downs;
· Site improvements;
· Loans;
· Issuance of bonds;
· Land and building acquisition by Agency;
· Direct housing construction;
· Housing rehabilitation;
· Rent subsidies;
· Predevelopment funds; and
· Administrative costs for non-profit housing corporations.
The specific uses of the set aside funds are described in the Housing Plan section of this
Housing Element.
Section 8
The Section 8 rental assistance program extends rental subsidies to Very Low Income
families and elderly who spend more than 30% of their income on rent. The subsidy
represents the difference between the excess of 30% of the monthly income and the
actual rent. Most Section 8 assistance is issued to the recipients as vouchers, which
permit tenants to locate their own housing and rent units beyond the federally
determined fair market rent in an area, provided the tenants pay the extra rent
increment.
The Housing Authority of Riverside administers the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher
Program for Temecula. As of April 1999, 22 households were leasing in Temecula
with the assistance of Section 8 programs. Of these 22, four households were elderly,
and seven were disabled. An additional 138 households living in Temecula were on the
waiting list to receive Section 8 rental assistance, 35 of which were elderly and/or
disabled.
3. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
The City receives its CDBG funding through the County of Riverside. Based on its
population, the City is eligible to receive approximately $300,000 annually from the
County. The City has, in the past, used approximately 85% of the CDBG funds for
capital projects, such as the Senior Citizen Center Expansion project, and the remaining
15% of the funding is awarded to various public service organizations. No CDBG
funds have been used for housing at this time.
IV. HousingResources,July 17,2000 Page4-38
J
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Element
C. Non-profit Housing Developers
The following are several non-profit housing providers interested in developing and/or
preserving affordable housing in the City:
Coachella Valley Housing Coalition
45-701 Monroe Street, Suite G
Indio, CA 92201
(760) 347-3157
· Habitat for Humanity
41964 Main Street
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 693-0460
Jamboree Housing Corporation
2081 Business Center Drive, Suite 216
Irvine, CA 92612
(949) 263-8676
Retirement Housing Foundation
5150 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 600
Long Beach, CA 90804-3312
(562) 597-5541
D. Infrastructure and Facilities
The majority of the land available for residential development is located adjacent to
existing infrastructure facilities, or within a Specific Plan area where infrastructure will be
provided as part of the development process. As a result, infrastructure facilities will be
able to serve most of the future residential development. The one exception to this is the
circulation system. As discussed in the Constraints section of this EIR, the existing
roadway system within Temecula is highly impacted with traffic generated by new
development. Until the cimulation system is expanded to meet the needs of the existing
development, the circulation system will constrain future development.
E. Energy Conservation
As residential energy costs rise, increasing utility cost reduce the affordability of housing.
The City has many opportunities to directly affect energy use within its jurisdiction. Title
24 of the California Administrative Code sets forth mandatory energy standards for new
development, and requires adoption of an "energy budget". The home building industry
must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy
conservation regulations.
IV. HousingResources,July 17,2000 Page4-39
ITEM 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 1, 2000
Growth Management Plan
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to the Planning Commission and staff on the
density and amenity issues associated with the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
BACKGROUND: On March 21, 2000 the City Council adopted the Growth Management
Program Action Plan which is intended to serve as the City Council's policy for the study and
implementation of growth management measures for the City of Temecula. It was the intent of
the Council to have staff and the Planning Commission review every development project to
ensure consistency with the GMP. On April 24, 2000, this Action Plan was amended.
DISCUSSION: There is one element of the GMP that requires some clarification among
staff and the Planning Commission. Under the Policy to "Redirect Urban Development to Urban
Areas," a goal is to "direct the Planning Commission to consider approving residential projects
at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The Commission may consider
approving a project above the lowest density if the project provides onsite or community
amenities." The Planning Commission has expressed some concerns with what constitutes an
amenity when reviewing residential projects. It is the hope of the Planning Commission that this
issue can be clarified at this joint City Council\Planning Commission Workshop.
FISCAL IMPACT:
impacts.
Since this staff report is dealing with a Policy issue, there are no fiscal
Attachment: Growth Management Action Plan
F:\DEPTS~,DLANNING~ebbie~oc.ccworkshop.gmp.doc
1
City of Temecula
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ACTION PLAN
As Adopted by the City Council on March 21, 2000
This Action Plan is intended to serve as the City Council's policy for the study and
implementation of growth management measures for the City of Temecula. Each
development project shall be studied by Staff, the Planning Commission and City
Council in light of the concerns expressed in this Plan and its action programs. Each
project shall be considered on its own merit and in accordance with all applicable federal
and state laws and under the City's General Plan and zoning ordinances.
1. Inter-Agency Coordination
A. Engage actively in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP)
1. Appoint Council representatives to monitor the following three (3)
Advisory Committees:
a. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability
Process (CETAP) - Ron Roberts.
b. General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) - JeffComerchero
c. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) - Mike
Naggar
Provide monthly committee reports to the City Council regarding the
status of the respective committees the second meeting of each month.
Staff should also participate and summarize meetings to assist the
Council representatives.
3. Dedicate staff resources to monitor the Riverside County Integrated
Plan (RCIP) process.
a. Create Senior Management Analyst position dedicated to the
Riverside County Integrated Plan. - Steve Brown
b. Hire Project Consultant to completely interface and represent the
City of Temecula's interests in every facet of the RCIP. - Sandra
Massa-Lavitt
F:\Depts\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth nmnagemenfiFinal Growth Management Program 2000.doc
4. Encourage community participation.
Provide quarterly publications informing our citizens of the
progress of the RCIP. Included in the budget for 2000-2001; a
community wide newsletter is planned following the April 27th
workshop.
b. Provide updated information on the City's web site regarding the
City and County regional planning efforts.
Provide news releases and other information regarding various
public meetings related to the RCIP process. Assist the County in
distributing printed materials to any community.
Conduct a citizen survey to determine the community's perspective
on growth related, as well as, other municipal issues. The survey
questions will be balanced and objective and wilt be approved by
the City Council prior to distribution.
Hold quarterly City Council workshops with County staff to gauge the
progress of the RCIP.
Deny general plan amendments, change of zones, specific plan
amendments, or specific plans within the City that result in increased
traffic levels greater than Level of Service "D" at buildout. It is
recommended that the City formally request that the County also adopt
this proposed policy. Proposed land use intensities outside of the City
boundaries must not adversely affect Temecula's quality of life from a
traffic or environmental standpoint or the City will consider litigation.
Projects with Specific Plan zoning that are consistent with the
underlying General Plan densities may proceed.
Analyze the circulation system impacts as they relate to proposed land
use changes along the 79 Noah Winchester Corridor and the 79 South
Corridor. Traffic modeling shall be performed for any changes as part
of the Riverside County Integrated Plan process. The City shall verify
the results of modeling.
8. Advocate the following policies throughout the RCIP process:
a. Address public transportation as it relates to our freeways and
connections to urban areas.
b. Phase and fund infrastructure to keep pace with proposed
development projects.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth management\Final Growth Management Program 2000.doc
2
c. Preserve significant amounts of land outside of the urban areas as
open space.
d. Establish urban growth boundaries for Temecula and other
communities within the RCIP Planning Area.
e. Establish greenbelts and open spaces around communities.
Collaborate with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians.
1. Cooperate regarding infrastructure improvements for the betterment of
the community.
2. Support the Tribe's efforts to promote self-reliance for the reservation
while promoting and preserving Temecula's quality of life.
Collaborate with other agencies.
1. Take a strong position against proposed recreational improvements on
the Diamond Lake Reservoir unless appropriate traffic mitigation and
phasing measures are a condition of approval for those improvements.
Redirect Urban Development to Urban Areas
A. Focused Review of City/County General Plan Opportunities.
1. Form a City Council General Plan Sub-Committee - Jeff Comerchero
and Mike Naggar
2. The Sub-Committee will work with the staff and advisory committee
(if an advisory committee is appointed by the Council) to address the
following General Plan issues:
a. Redistribution ofland uses.
b. Cluster densities related to Specific Plans.
c. Review multi-family housing issues throughout the City.
d. Evaluate opportunities for open space.
e. Update the Circulation Element
f. Consider other areas as necessary.
F:\Depts\PLANNINGXBROWNS\growth management\Final Growth Management Program 2000.doe
3
Evaluate the total number of building permits that may be issued
annually to projects that are not covered by a development
agreement or a vesting map.
B. City Development Project Review Process
Direct the Planning Commission to consider approving residential
projects at the lowest allowable density in each density category. The
Commission may consider approving a project above the lowest
density if the project provides onsite or community amenities.
Preserve Open Space to Create Buffers and Protect Agriculture
and Valuable Habitat Areas
A. Acquire vital open space and resource areas.
Evaluate a DIF component for the preservation of open space.
Consider feasibility of a ¼ cent sales tax ballot measure for the
acquisition and preservation of open space.
2. Condition Specific Plans to preserve a significant amount of area for
open space.
,
Maintain large parcel sizes in rural areas. Parcel sizes should increase
the greater the distance from urban core areas. Encourage down
zoning and parcel merging to maintain large rural lot sizes.
4. Apply for and utilize State Bond Funds (e.g. Propositions 12 and 13)
and other grant sources to acquire and preserve open space.
5. Explore potential tax advantages for developers interested in selling
land for open space and/or encouraging continued agricultural use.
Complete an analysis to the amount of open space remaining in the
City and determine the costs per acre, acquisition priority, and
implement acquisition funding strategy.
Traffic Circulation System Improvements
A. Ensure that infrastructure in constructed ahead of new development.
Implement the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). This will include
construction of freeway overcrossings, bridge crossings, arterial street
improvements, etc., as outlined in the City Capital Improvement Plan.
This is a 5-year planning and budget document that is reviewed and
adopted each year.
F:\Depts\pLANNING\BROWNS\growth management\Final Growth Management Program 2000.doe
4
2. Implement Category 1 and 2 street striping and paving improvements.
3. Pursue Measure A and discretionary funds for regional traffic
improvement projects.
a. Involve CETAP representative.
b. Utilize Southwest Riverside Coalition to position region for
funding allocation opportunities.
4. Work with other jurisdictions to establish programs and funding
sources for construction of required traffic improvements.
a. Maximize infrastructure dollars by teaming with other local
jurisdictions, particularly the City of Murrieta and the Pechanga
Tribe.
b. Establish a regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) for construction of regional circulation improvements and
work with the City of Murrieta to build a consensus on proposed
traffic projects.
c. Work with the County to ensure that County development impact
fees collected in this area are spent in the southwest area of
Riverside County.
B. Work with Cal-Trans to develop regional improvements to circulation
system.
1. Determine how the RCIP and CETAP will mitigate and address the
impact that future growth will have on the 1-15 and 1-215 freeway
system.
2. Continue to pressure the State to fund new highway and freeway
construction.
3. Analyze feasibility to realigning SR-79 North between Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and Interstate 215/15 and making that portion of
Winchester Road a city-controlled street.
C. Continue to condition new development to ensure that infrastructure
is constructed in conjunction with development impacts.
1. Require comprehensive traffic studies for project specific and regional
impacts.
a. Identify thresholds/criteria to require traffic studies.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth managemenfiFinal Growth Management Program 2000.doe 5
Require independent traffic analysis, when appropriate on all proposed
development projects. This independent analysis would be paid for by
the developer but controlled and administered by the City.
Require that phased traffic improvements be constructed prior to
projected impacts of development.
Re-evaluate DIF fees to ensure that appropriate mitigation fees are
being charged and the timing of the DIF fees are appropriately
collected. The Development Impact Fees should be reviewed on an
annual basis.
Complete traffic counts on an ongoing basis at major intersections
during peak times to ensure that Levels of Service remain at "D" or
better.
Maximize Existing Transportation Network Efficiency
A.
Enhance traffic signal and roadway system operations.
1.
Hire a traffic signal technician specifically dedicated only to
improving the operation of all traffic signals. (this has been done.)
2. Monitor and check traffic signals proactively for coordination and
efficiency on a daily basis.
3. Work with CalTrans on traffic signals within the State's right ofway.
4. Provide traffic count information to local employers to assist them in
scheduling shift changes and deliveries during peak traffic periods
where possible.
Identify and Expand Public Transit Opportunities.
1. Work with outside agencies to identify and determine feasibility of
external public transit options.
a. Establish Mag Lev or High Speed Rail.
b. Expand Metrolink.
c. Provide High Speed Express Buses.
d. Consider other transit opportunities.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth management\Final Growth Management Program 2000.doe
6
2. Identify and determine feasibility of intemal public transit options,
working with outside agencies, as appropriate, including:
a. Expand Bus Program in coordination with RTA.
b. Acquire alternate fuel vehicles such as electric fuel cell or
natural gas (example: electric trolley) where appropriate,
through working with transportation agencies.
c. Provide direction to staff regarding an electric trolley system.
d. Explore the option to integrate the RTA bus system with the
school district system to achieve economies of scale and avoid
duplication of services.
e. Establish a Dial-a-Ride/Smart Shuttle.
f. Support a program to provide bus passes to students and the
elderly. Support could be in the form of either a direct or
partial subsidy to the t?ansit providers.
g. Provide Fixed Rail - Monorail - Light Rail.
h. Establish a shuttle system to move employees from the west
side of the freeway to commercial areas/restaurants within the
City.
i. Support vanpools for major employers in the Temecula area
and support efforts to facilitate ride sharing.
4. Identify Funding Sources for Public Transit options.
5. Develop clean fuel facilities and infrastructure to support new
technologies in clean fuel development.
ADMINISTRATION
The Growth Management Program Action Plan will be annually reviewed by the City
Council.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\BROWNS\growth n~anagemenfiFinal Growth Management Program 2000.doe
7
ITEM 3
J
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council/Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
August 1, 2000
General Plan Progress Report
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council and Planning Commission provide comments on the
Elements (i.e. Land Use, Circulation, Growth Management) that should be examined during the
update of the City's General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Staff was directed to prepare an update to the City's General Plan as an outcome of a sedes of
workshops and public meetings on growth management. A draft Request for Proposal and Request
for Qualifications (RFP/RFQ) has been prepared by staff but has not been distributed to potential
consultants. Staff has been compiling a comprehensive mailing list of quality out of area firms to
receive the RFP/RFQ. A comprehensive discussion with the Council and Commission was deemed
necessary in order to incoq~orate all the key issues that should be examined in the revised General
Plan. The revised RFQ/RFP will be presented to the General Plan Sub Committee for final
concurrence prior to release to the consultants.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the 2000/2001 budget to coverthe $300,000,00
cost of the General Plan Update Fund from the Consulting Services line item (001-161-999-5248).
F:\Dep~PLANNING\GENPLAN\Comp Plan Update~StaffReport-cc workshop 8-1430.doc
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
JUNE 13, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
8:11 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Comerchero presiding.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
Nagger, Pratt, Roberts, Stone, and
Comerchero
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Award of Construction Contract for the Rancho California Sports Park Parkinq Lot
Rehabilitation Project - Project No. PW00-05
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Award a contract for Rancho California Sports Park Parking Lot Rehabilitation
Project - Project No. PW00-05 to E. A. Mendoza, Inc. of Irvine, California, in
the amount of $153,030.00 and authorize the President to execute the contract;
1.2
Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $15,303.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
(Director Naggar abstained with regard to this item.)
2
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to solicit Construction
Bids for Maintenance Facility Modifications - Project No. PW00-16
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Approve the construction plans and specifications and authorize the Department
of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Maintenance Facility
Modifications - Project No. PW00-16.
Minutes,csd\061300 1
3 Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossincl - Proiect PW97-25CSD Chanqe Order
with Granite Construction for additional work
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Authorize the General Manager to approve Contract Change Order No, 4 for an
amount of $93,075.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency for the
Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossing - Project No. PW97-25CSD.
3.2 Authorize the transfer of funds from the I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp Widening
at Rancho California Road Project Account No. 210-165-605-5802 in the amount
of $93,075.00 to the Santa Ger~rudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossing Project
Fund - Construction Account No. 210-190-147-5804.
(Pulled for separate discussion; see below.)
4 Inclusion of Tracts into Service Level B for Fiscal Year 2000-2001
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ACCEPTING
CERTAIN TRACTS INTO TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B FOR
PURPOSES OF ENERGIZING RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTS
BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2000-200'1
5 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended
March 31, 2000.
MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 and 4-5 (Item No.
3 was pulled for separate discussion; see below). The motion was seconded by Director
Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM PULLED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION
3 Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossincl - Project PW97-25CSD Chanqe Order
with Granite Construction for additional work
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Authorize the General Manager to approve Contract Change Order No. 4 for an
amount of $93,075.00 above the previously approved 10% contingency for the
Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossing - Project No. PW97-25CSD.
Minutes,csd\061300 2
/I
3.3
Authorize the transfer of funds from the I-15 Southbound Off-Ramp Widening
at Rancho California Road Project Account No. 210-165-605-5802 in the amount
of $93,075.00 to the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bike Trail Undercrossing Project
Fund - Construction Account No. 210-190-147-5804.
Public Works Director Hughes presented the staff report (as per agenda material), clarifying that
there was an error in the engineering quantities; that this error was determined after construction
had started; that the work was completed; that the work was necessary in order to complete the
project; and that the City may direct staff to pursue possible reimbursement by way of the
oonsultant's errors and omissions insurance.
Although not disputing the need for the completed work, Director Stone relayed concern with the
City incurring the financial responsibility as a result of an error on the part of the consultant.
City Attorney Thorson advised that the District must settle with the contractor for the extra work
completed and that the approval of this recommendation would not preclude the District from
pursuing the consultant's errors and omissions insurance.
MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded
by Director Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charaes for Fiscal Year 2000-2001
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING
RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL B -
RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTING, SERVICE LEVEL C -
SLOPE MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICE LEVEL D -
RECYCLING AND REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ADOPTING
RATES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICE LEVEL R - STREET
AND ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000-2001
Minutes.csd~61300 3
Community Services Director Parker reviewed the staff report (of record).
In order for Director Stone to vote on recommendation 6.1, City Attorney Thorson advised that
Service Level R has been removed from the associated resolution.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation 6,1. The motion was
seconded by Director Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation 6.2. The motion was
seconded by Director Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Director
Stone who abstained.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
No additional comments.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:28 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday,
June 27, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
A"FrEST:
Jeff Comerchere, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minu~s.csd\061300 4
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
JUNE '13, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:28
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone,
and Chairman Robeds.
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None.
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Financial Statements for the nine months ended March 31, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and file the Financial Statements for the nine months ended
March 31, 2000.
MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Agency Member Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
AGENCY BUSINESS
2 Professional Services Aqreement with Fisher Merriman Sehclal Yanez, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement with Fisher Merriman Sehgal
Yanez, Inc. for the design of the Old Town Community Theater in the amount of
$75,000;
2.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,500.
(Agency Member Stone abstained with regard to this item.)
Housing Redevelopment Manager Meyer reviewed the staff report (of record), amending the
staff report to accurately include $4,000 for reimbursable expenses with a total contract amount
of $86,500.
R:\Minutes\061300 1
Commenting on this successful private/public partnership and addressing the benefits to Old
Town as well as the entire City with the construction of a theater, Mr. Harry Clark, Member of
the Board of the Theater Foundation, presented to the Agency a check in the amount of
$43,250.
Chairman Roberrs, echoed by Agency Member Comerchero, relayed appreciation and
expressed his enthusiasm with this private/public partnership, with Mr. Comerchero advising
that the chosen architectural firm was chosen because of its history with theater projects.
For Agency Member Naggar, it was noted that this project should be completed in two years.
MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation as amended,
including the additional $4,000 for reimbursable expenses. The motion was seconded by
Agency Member Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Commending the Theater Foundation on its financial contribution, Executive Director Nelson
advised that the Foundation had pledged to raise $1 million toward this project. Noting that the
Capital Improvement Program will be discussed at the June 27, 2000, City Council meeting, Mr.
Nelson noted that a $464,000 increase is being proposed to this project to the already designated
amount of $650,000.
AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:39 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, June 27, 2000, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Ron Roberts, Chairman
ATI'EST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City ClerWAgency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\061300