COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2003 FAIR HOUSING IMPEDIMENTS STUDY
[pic]
Prepared by
Riverside County Economic Development Agency
Bradley J. Hudson, Assistant County Executive Officer/EDA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2003 FAIR HOUSING IMPEDIMENTS STUDY
Board of Supervisors
Roy Wilson, Chairman
Jim Venable, Vice Chairman
Bob Buster, Supervisor
Jim Venable, Supervisor
Marion Ashley, Supervisor
Prepared by
Riverside County
Economic Development Agency
Bradley J. Hudson, Assistant County Executive Officer/EDA
Susan Wamsley, Executive Director, Housing Authority
Robert Field, Deputy Director, EDA
Technical Assistance
Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
Rose Mayes, Executive Director
3600 Lime Street, Suite 613
Riverside, CA 92501
Printed
February 2004
Table of Contents
I Introduction
A. Purpose 1
B. Methodology 1
C. Summary of 1995 Study 2
II Community Profile
A. Population Characteristics
1. Background 5
2. Population and Ethnicity 5
3. Income Characteristics 7
4. Employment and Transportation 7
5. Housing 8
6. Poverty and Income 9
7. Projections 9
B. Current Fair Housing Profile
1. Landlord/Tenant Discrimination Complaints 9
2. Countywide Complaints Received by HUD/DFEH 12
III Impediments to Fair Housing
A. Obtaining Housing
1. Real Estate Practices 21
2. Sale and Rental of Housing 22
3. Fair Housing Audit Update 22
4. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing 23
5. Financing: Evaluation of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Reports 24
B. Public Policies and Actions
1. Background 25
2. Zoning Ordinances 26
3. General Plans 28
4. Fair Housing 28
5. Housing Programs 29
6. Evaluations of Housing Elements Goals and Policies-Observations 29
7. Bond Financing .31
8. Taxation 31
C. Housing Program Administrative Policies
1. Housing Authority 31
2. CDBG/HOME Programs 31
3. Complying Programs/Non-Impediments 32
D. Summary of Impediments to Fair Housing
1. Background 33
2. Summary of Impediments 34
IV Recommendations
A. Conclusions and Recommendations 39
B. Recommendations 39
V Appendices
A. Glossary of Terms
B. Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003
C. County of Riverside Ethnic Concentrations Map
D. County of Riverside Low/Moderate Income Areas
E. Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Public Evaluations
F. Home Mortgage Disclosure Report (HMDA) Data
G. Public Policy Review Questionnaire
List of Tables
Table II-1 Riverside County Population and Ethnic/ Racial Distribution ……..…..…. 13
Table II-2 Riverside County Population by Age..………………………...…......……. 13
Table II-3 Income Distribution in Riverside County..……………………….….…….. 14
Table II-4 Low and Very Low Income Households in Riverside County.….……….... 14
Table II-5 Riverside County Housing Stock..…………………………….……..……. 15
Table II-6 Riverside County Cost of Housing..……………………………………….. 15
Table II-7 Persons by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty Level Status in Riverside County....16
Table II-8 Landlord Tenant Complaints Filed in Riverside County.….………………. 17
Table II-9 Discrimination Complaints by Classification…………………………..….. 18
Table II-10 Discrimination Complaints Resolutions.……………………………….…...18
Table II-11 Bases of Complaints..………………………………………………….… ...19
Table II-12 Total Number of Discrimination Cases Filed ..……………………………..19
Table II-13 Closing Categories of Cases Filed…………………………………….…….20
Table III-1 Loan Origination and Denial Rates by Type of Loan…..…………………..37
Table III-2 Loan Origination and Denial Rates by Type of Race. ……………………..37
Table III-3 Loan Origination and Denial Rates by Type of Income..……………..……38
Table III-4 Reasons for Denial of Loans……………………………………….……… 38
List of Figures
Figure 1 Riverside County Population Shares by Race/Ethnicity…….……………….. 6
Figure 2 Riverside County Complaint Category.………………………………………11
Figure 3 Riverside County Discrimination Complaints Received…….…………….…11
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The County of Riverside’s mission is to “Promote economic opportunity and affordable housing that provides a suitable living environment, free of discrimination, to all persons.”
PURPOSE
It is the intention of the County to provide community development and housing opportunities without regard to arbitrary factors and to affirmatively further fair housing on a Countywide basis. Fair Housing Choice can be defined as the ability of persons of similar income to have available to them the same housing choices without regard to race color, religion, sex, disabilities, familial status, or national origin.
The County has prepared this update of its Fair Housing Impediments Study pursuant to 24CFR 570.904(c)(1) of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) regulations. The CDBG program is funded and administered by the federal government through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The purpose of this study is to revisit the County’s 1995 Fair Housing Impediments Study (1995 Study) and to determine if the impediment findings at that time have been addressed and resolved. Areas of review in the 1995 Study extended beyond fair housing choices within the County and the County’s CDBG Cooperating Cities to include impediments relating to the sale or rental of dwellings, the provision of housing brokerage services, the provision of financing for housing, public policies and actions, and administrative policies concerning community development and housing activities. A list of terms and definitions used in this report can be found in the Appendix A.
B. METHODOLOGY
The two primary sources used to analyze data for this study consist of the following: published literature, policies and data; and the fair housing audit developed and conducted specifically for the purpose of this study to identify the incidence of unfair treatment. In addition to the 1995 Study, the literature and data reviewed for this study included:
• Riverside County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinances
• The general plans/zoning ordinances of 14 CDBG cooperating cities
• Riverside County’s housing and community development programs and administrative policies
• Data collected by Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. pursuant to the contract to provide fair housing services for the County
• Demographic data (Countywide areas – unincorporated and incorporated)
• Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reports
• Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) information pertaining to lending institutions throughout the County
• Other studies and analyses of fair housing opportunities
The Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. (FHCRC) has been contracted by the County to provide fair housing services to the unincorporated areas as well as the County’s 14 CDBG Cooperating Cities. The cooperating cities are those cities that participate with the County in its entitlement program and receive an allocation based upon HUD Fair Share formula. The current 14 cooperating cities are: Banning, Blythe, Beaumont, Canyon Lake, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, San Jacinto, and Temecula.
The services provided by FHCRC include: technical assistance and enforcement, anti-discrimination activities, landlord/tenant mediation and fair housing education. In addition to opening satellite offices in the eastern part of the County to serve the desert region, a specific component of the County’s 2002/2003 CDBG contract with FHCRC is the Proactive Technical Assistance Testing Component, also referred to as the Fair Housing Audit. The purpose of this activity is to become more accessible to the County’s residents, and to test the housing market Countywide for impediments to fair housing choices.
As directed, FHCRC conducted objective, proactive testing in the areas of rental housing, for-sale housing and housing finance. Six target locations were selected as a representative sample of jurisdictions countywide. FHCRC conducted 15 validated tests for rental housing, 12 validated tests for the sale of the housing, and housing finance. The results of these tests are contained within this study, and the complete report, Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003 prepared by the FHCRC is included as Appendix B.
C. SUMMARY OF 1995 STUDY
The Fair Housing Impediments Study prepared by the County of Riverside in 1995 consists of the following chapters:
1. Introduction, which presents the Study’s purpose and the methodologies utilized in its preparation.
2. Community Profile, which describes the characteristics of the study area’s population, as well as the area’s fair housing profile.
3. Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, which outlines the procedures involved in obtaining housing, the policies and actions of public bodies as they pertain to protecting fair housing choice, and the administrative policies of various bodies responsible for implementing those policies.
4. Conclusion, which presents the recommended goals for the County and its Community Planning and Development (CPD) Cooperating Cities, a financial plan, provision for future updates, and a summary of impediments faced by individuals and groups within the County.
5. Recommendations, which provides recommendations for ensuring fair housing choice within the County and its CPD Cooperating Cities, as well as recommended procedures to be followed by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County
6. Appendices, consisting of the following documents and exhibits:
• Fair Housing Audit Analysis prepared by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
• Racial/Ethnic Concentration Map prepared by the County of Riverside
• Low Income Concentration Map prepared by the County of Riverside
• Discrimination Complaints Map prepared by the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
• Community Reinvestment Act Public Evaluations
• Fair Housing Impediments Study Review of Public Policies in various jurisdictions within the boundaries of the County of Riverside.
The findings of the 1995 Study indicated the following:
While it can be difficult to prove that discrimination has occurred, the concentration of complaints (particularly complaints of a similar type) is a reasonably good indicator that some sort of problem exists. The 1995 Study concluded that, based on an evaluation of data presented therein, discrimination based upon race and upon family status/children consistently represented the most common categories of complaint. The conclusion regarding race was supported by the experience of FHCRC testers, who reported several instances of race-based discrimination.
The 1995 Study discussed the following categories of potentially significant impediments to a fair housing choice within the County and its Cooperating Cities:
• Unequal treatment of persons in the sale and rental of housing based on race
• Discrimination in housing accessibility based on race and family status (children)
• Discrimination in the rates of housing loan approvals based on race
• Potential discrimination created by General Plan Housing Elements that have not been reviewed and approved by the State of California and therefore have the potential to be out of compliance with state laws regarding housing availability
• County legal documents (primarily covenants attached to housing-related agreements) that do not contain references to applicable fair housing law
• Zoning ordinances that do not include state-mandated density bonus rules for affordable housing
• Lack of an organized program to consistently educate CDBG grantees and sub-recipients of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law
The 1995 Study then presented the following recommendations regarding the elimination of these impediments:
• Amend the Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside’s legal documents (primarily covenants attached to housing-related agreements) to include references to applicable fair housing law
• Adopt zoning ordinances at both the County and Cooperating City level that include state-mandated density bonus rules for affordable housing
• Amend Cooperating Cities’ General Plan Housing Elements to ensure that they are in compliance with state laws regarding housing availability, and have them reviewed and approved by the State of California within a specified timeframe
• Encourage Cooperating Cities to promote and utilize Fair Housing Program Services on the behalf of their residents
• To the maximum practical extent, shift FHCRC resources from landlord/tenant information services to discrimination prevention and enforcements activity support
• Have FHCRC provide training to CDBG grant recipients in various aspects of fair housing law compliance
• Implement a FHCRC-managed system that will track discrimination complaints on a demographic/geographic basis to enhance reporting capabilities
• Target the mortgage industry for specific FHCRC testing to establish the approximate extent of discrimination within the industry
• Continue efforts to provided FHCRC-provided education to landlords and property management firms in fair housing laws and regulations as they pertain to the rental housing industry
• Continue and expand fair housing outreach programs intended to meet the needs of the County’s Hispanic population, including the development of marketing materials and presentations in Spanish
Please note that all tables referenced in this report will be located at the end of each section.
SECTION II
COMMUNITY PROFILE
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
1. Background
Riverside County is the fourth largest county in California and was founded in 1893. It is one of the most diverse counties in California. The County contains 24 incorporated cities and spans an area of 7,207 square miles. The County is bounded by San Bernardino County on the north, Orange County on the west, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south and the Colorado River and the State of Arizona on the east. It offers its residents and visitors a wide range of unique lands that differ in physical, climatic, and biotic conditions. There are fertile valleys with an extensive array of agricultural crops; undulating and rugged terrain with beautiful mountains, streams and rivers; and deserts.
Of the aforementioned 24 incorporated cities, 14 are “Cooperating Cities” that participate in the HUD-funded Community Planning and Development (CPD) program’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as “sub-grantees”. In addition, there are dozens of unincorporated communities within the County, and extensive landholdings managed by state and federal agencies.
From 1990 to 2001, Riverside County was the fourth fastest growing county in California with an annual growth rate of 2.8%. Between 2003 and 2010, it is projected to remain one of California’s fastest growing counties. The County’s rapid growth rate is expected to continue as people move to the area to take advantage of lower housing costs. In recent years, many who have relocated to the County have continued to work in and commute to Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties.
2. Population and Ethnicity
Much of the population growth of the last decade within the County is due to its location within the Southern California region. The combination of Southern California’s job market, transportation, infrastructure, lower housing prices, and inexpensive and plentiful land for housing has contributed to increased development pressures countywide. The growth resulting from these factors has also resulted in a diversification of the economic base of the County, and has led to increased industrial, commercial, and tourism-related development. Agriculture continues to be economically important and is expected to remain a viable industry in the future. Changing economic, political, and environmental factors are expected to have significant effects on future growth in the County.
Table II-1 indicates Riverside County’s population, ethnic distribution and rate of growth as tabulated in the 1990 and 2000 Census. Race and ethnicity data from the Census information is somewhat difficult to interpret. HUD considers White, Black/African American, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders as five single-race categories. Hispanic is now considered an ethnicity category rather than a race category. It is possible to select “some other race” and to mark more than one of these race groups.
As indicated in Table II-1, the fastest growing ethnic group in the County is Hispanic residents (82%), followed by residents of Black or African American heritage (54%), and followed closely by Asian/Pacific Islander (52%). According to the California State Department of Finance, by the year 2010, it is estimated that the Hispanic population will increase to 773,683, the population of Black/African American will increase to 116,132, and the Asian/Pacific Islander population will total approximately 128,471.
Although the White Non-Hispanic population represents the single largest group of population at 51%, this group has seen a minimal growth rate for the past decade. This is true as well for the State of California. In fact, California’s White Non-Hispanic population has declined by more than 1 million, representing a decrease of 7.4%.
According to the 2000 Census, females represent 776,003 (50.2%) of the County’s total population of 1,545,387. The population figure in the County of Riverside has continued to grow to a January 2002 estimate of 1,644,300. At 1,545,387, County of Riverside was placed sixth overall in population in the State of California. In 1990, the County was ranked seventh.
Two maps depicting ethnic concentrations for the western and eastern parts of Riverside County by census tracts are included in Appendix C. The exhibits indicate areas where the presence of ethnic concentrations is greater than 50%. The higher concentrations are represented by darker color.
Figure 1 below shows the population shares by race and ethnicity based on the 2000 Census.
[pic]93% (1,439,546 persons) of Riverside County’s residents reside in urban locations and 7% (105,841 persons) reside in rural areas. The total permanent farm population is 2,980 persons. In addition, an evaluation of residents countywide as shown in Table II-2 indicates that 30.3% are under 18 years of age, 57% are between the ages of 18 and 64, and 12.7% are 65 or older. The countywide median age is 33.1. The median age of females in the entire population is 34.1, while the median age for males is 32.1.
3. Income Characteristics
The County’s median family income in 1999 was $48,409, an increase of 29% over the 1989 median family income of $37,694. The 1989 HUD Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI) for Riverside-San Bernardino County area was $37,273. The 1999 HAMFI was $47,200, a 26% increase over the past 10 years. The 2002 HAMFI for the Riverside-San Bernardino County area was $50,300.
Table II-3 presents the breakdown of the total households and the income brackets in which they fall, as recorded in the 2000 Census.
An evaluation of households by income category from the HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) databook indicates that in 1990, 89,807 households had incomes at or below 50% of the median income and were considered very-low income. These households represent 2.2% of the total households countywide. In year 2000, this number has increased to 111,175 households, a 24% increase over a ten year period. HUD projected this number to increase to 118,054 for the year 2002, an increase of 31% over a 12 year period. Appendix D consists of two maps depicting concentrations of Low/Mod Countywide areas based on HUD Low-Mod Block Group estimates from 2000 Census data. Table II-4 provides breakdown of Low and Very Low income data based on 2000 CHAS data.
4. Employment and Transportation
In the 2000 Census, Riverside County had a total of 654,387 persons age 16 and older in the labor force. The civilian labor force represented 651,952 persons, or 99.6 % of the total labor force. In 2000, 49,096 persons were unemployed, for an unemployment rate of 7.5% of the civilian labor force. The local economy experienced a recession beginning in late 1990, which increased the unemployment rate for Riverside County to a non-seasonally adjusted peak of 12% in 1993. The lowest unemployment rate of 5.4% was achieved in 1999. Recent events such as the September 11, 2001 tragedy, rising California energy prices, periodic corporate accounting scandals, and rising personal bankruptcy indicate a challenging economy ahead. The most recent figures show an estimated unemployment rate of 5.3% for Riverside County in December 2003.
According to the 2000 Census, the largest occupations in Riverside County were educational, health and social services (18.8%), retail trade (12.7%), and manufacturing (12.1%). In terms of dollar value, agriculture is the largest industry. According to the 1999 Riverside County Agricultural Crop and Livestock Report, countywide agricultural production totaled over one billion dollars. Riverside County is the ninth-largest agricultural producing county in California.
The primary mode of transportation for Riverside County residents is the automobile. The County has an extensive road network which includes Interstate Freeways, State Highways, and local roads. Public bus transportation is available in the more populous locations. Commuter rail service from Riverside into Los Angeles County and Orange County is now available.
5. Housing
According to the 2000 Census, 584,674 housing units were counted in Riverside County. This figure represents an increase of 21% over the 1990 Census of 483,847. Of the total housing units, only 506,218 were occupied. This represents an overall vacancy of 13%, 157,686 (31.1%) of the units were renter-occupied housing units and 348,532 (68.9%) were owner-occupied housing units. In addition, 7.2% of existing rental units were vacant while 2.5% of owner-occupied units were vacant. This is a remarkable improvement considering the 1990 census shows a 10% vacancy of existing rental units and 5% vacancy of owner occupied housing units. Table II-5 presents the housing distribution in Riverside County based on the 1990 and 2000 Census.
According to the 2000 Census, the number of households in the County increased by 104,151 to a total of 506,218 households. This is a 26% increase over the 1990 Census. At that rate, Riverside County had the sixth largest household increase in the State of California based on the 2000 Census data. It is expected that the number of households will continue to increase to 680,600 households by the year 2010, an average annual growth rate of 3% (Source: Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy).
The average household size is increasing. The average household size in County rose from 2.85 persons per unit in 1990 to 2.98 in 2000. This is due to the increase in household size for owner-occupied housing, which rose from an average of 2.83 persons to 3.0 during the decade. The average number of persons in renter-occupied housing rose also, from 2.88 persons to 2.96 persons.
The percentage of units with more than one person per room also increased in the 2000’s. Units with more than one person per room are considered crowded under certain conditions. In Riverside County, this proportion rose from 10.1% of the occupied inventory in 1990 to 12.7% in 2000. This increase in crowding is a response to high housing costs, changing household composition, and the influx of migrants to Southern California.
Table II-6 presents the median home value, median rent, and median household income for both 1990 and 2000.
32% of homeowners and 44% of Riverside County renters devote 30% or more of household income to their housing cost.
As of 2000, approximately 25% of the County’s housing stock was 30 years old or older as compared to only 15% in 1990. As the County’s housing ages, maintenance and repair become more critical. If homes fall into disrepair, residents may be subject to unsafe and/or unhealthful living conditions. If maintenance is ignored long enough, housing may become uninhabitable, reducing the total number of units available within the County.
The median home prices fell in the first half of last decade by 13% in Riverside County. By the last half of the decade, the median resale home price had recovered earlier losses, and increased by as much as 66%. This far exceeds the 19.2% increase in the California Consumer Price Index for this period.
6. Poverty and Income
The proportion of the Riverside County population living below the poverty threshold varies widely by race and ethnicity. Table II-7 shows the number of persons that are below poverty level across all races.
According to the data, one in seven Riverside County residents, or 14.2% (214,084) of the population, lived in poverty in 1999, up from one in five, or 11.5% (131,690) a decade earlier. The number of Hispanics that are below poverty increased from 59,031 in 1990 to 114,880 in 2000 Census. That is an almost 94% increase. In high poverty areas such as the eastern part of Riverside County, the residents tend to spend more than 30% of their income in rent. In 1999, the number of persons that paid 30% or more of their income in rent was 68,938 out of 147,521 or 47%. In 1989, 61,173 out of 122,850 or 50% paid amounts exceeding that threshold. Although the percentage has dropped, the number of households that were cost burdened have increased. The tight supply of low-income housing increases the pressures on these residents.
7. Projections
A recent study prepared by the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy projected that the County’s total population would reach 2,060,200 in 2010. A growth rate of 2.7% per year is anticipated through the year 2010. Riverside County was ranked fourth in the top ten counties for population growth in 1990-2001 (at 2.8%) and is projected to remain as one of the fastest growing counties in decades ahead.
CURRENT FAIR HOUSING PROFILE
1. Landlord/Tenant and Discrimination Complaints
As has been previously stated, the FHCRC addresses complaints relating to landlord/tenant disputes and housing discrimination.
a. Landlord/Tenant Complaints
Landlord/tenant complaints involve alleged violations of the California Civil Code as it relates to the legal responsibilities and duties of landlords and tenants. The FHCRC is set up to provide technical assistance and mediation services to both parties involved in a landlord/tenant dispute. According to the FHCRC, most landlord tenant disputes that are actual violations of the Civil Code consist of illegal evictions, unlawful retention of security deposits, and breaches of the warranty of habitability. If left uncorrected, legitimate violations have the potential to create impediments to fair housing by limiting access to housing of choice, affordable or otherwise.
Table II-8 presents data regarding the total number of landlord/tenant inquiries or “complaints” received by the FHCRC between July 1995 and June 2002 and the ultimate disposition of those complaints going beyond mere information dissemination. When a comparison based on percentages is made of cases referred for legal services, approximately 16% (7,868) of the complaints were ultimately recommended for referral to another agency or an attorney. Lastly, cases mediated countywide totaled approximately 2% (974) of all complaints filed between July 1995 and June 2002.
b. Discrimination Complaints
Complaints relating to housing discrimination involve alleged violations of both state and federal fair housing laws as they apply to the rental and purchase of housing units. Under these laws, housing consumers cannot be treated unfairly or differently based on race, skin color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, marital status, disability, and/or the presence of minor children. When housing discrimination complaints based on one or more of these categories are received, the FHCRC will attempt to seek a resolution. If efforts to resolve a case are unsuccessful and the supporting documentation appears to be weak, the case is given to the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) for further investigation.
Table II-9 examines seven categories of housing discrimination monitored by the FHCRC. The data presented covers a seven-year time period and includes the unincorporated part of the County and CDBG cooperating cities. The FHCRC logged records of discrimination complaints by the city of origin in the intake process. Unfortunately, however, discrimination complaints emanating from CDBG cooperating cities are not reported by FHCRC to the Economic Development Agency by city of origin. In order to more effectively address racial discrimination as an impediment to fair housing in CDBG cooperating cities in the future, it is recommended that all discrimination complaints and related information be logged and presented by city of origin as well as by census tract. A similar methodology should be considered for complaints originating in the unincorporated portion of the County.
An examination of the data in Table II-9 indicates that discrimination falling under the separate categories of race, family status, and disability violations comprised of 26%, 21%, and 19% of the complaints, respectively, or 66% of the total complaints received during the aforementioned seven year span (1995-2002).
Figure 2 gives a pictorial representation of each complaint category for the past five years.
The data in Figure 3 clearly shows that race was still one of the leading categories of discrimination complaints for the time period specified. Although it was not the highest category of complaints in the last several years, race was cited among the top two complaints for five years out of the seven-year time span.
[pic]
Family status category was cited as the second most complaint received in three out of seven year time span. Efforts to educate and mitigate the problem appear to be having encouraging results. This category was not among the top three complaints cited in the past two years even though it appeared to be the number two complaint category received in the seven-year time span. The increased outreach by FHCRC to the public may have played a big factor in educating the public. However, with the tight housing market and lack of affordable large housing units, it remains a challenging environment.
Table II-10 delineates information relating to the processing and resolution of discrimination complaints after they are submitted to the FHCRC. The data is presented for the seven-year time span for unincorporated County areas and all CDBG cooperating cities.
An evaluation of data presented indicates that a total of 839 discrimination complaints were filed with the FHCRC. Of the 839 complaints filed, approximately 24 (3%) were conciliated, 143 (17%) were referred to either a private attorney, HUD-or DFEH for further action, and 172 (21%) were found to be inconclusive.
2. Countywide Complaints Received by HUD and DFEH
As has been previously discussed, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) ultimately receives fair housing discrimination complaints that cannot be resolved at the local level through organizations such as the FHCRC. Table II-11 provides information on the number and type of complaints received by HUD. The complaints are delineated by various categories of discrimination. The figures cover the time period from 1996 to 2002. According to HUD, the figures provided represent complaints filed countywide. For purposes of this discussion, countywide complaints include complaints originating in jurisdictions that are non-cooperating (CDBG) cities as well as those originating in cooperating cities and unincorporated county areas. As can be seen, alleged discrimination based on the categories of race, disability, and family status drew the highest number of complaints at 30%, 19%, and 17% respectively.
The breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed for Riverside County on an annual basis is shown in Table II-12.
Between 7-1-96 and 6-30-02, DFEH reports that a total of 77 cases (31%) of the 247 filed for Riverside County were settled. While HUD attempts to conciliate all legitimate complaints, it estimates that about 10% of all discrimination cases received are ultimately resolved through administrative hearings and/or litigated in federal court. Complaints dismissed for administrative reasons (complaint withdrawn, lack of jurisdiction, missing complainant, case dismissed, etc.) or findings of no discrimination totaled 167 cases (68%) of all cases processed for the time period referenced above. According to HUD, the percentage of cases dismissed for the aforementioned reasons fluctuates on a yearly basis. A summary of the closing categories are shown in Table II-13.
|TABLE II-1 |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY POPULATION AND ETHNIC/RACIAL DISTRIBUTION |
| |1990 |2000 |Numeric Change |Percent Change |
| |Number |Percent |Number |Percent | | |
|White |754,140 |64.4% |788,831 |51.0% |34,691 |4.6% |
|(non-Hispanic) | | | | | | |
|Hispanic |307,514 |26.3% |559,575 |36.2% |252,061 |82% |
|(all Races) | | | | | | |
|Black or African American |59,966 |5.1% |92,403 |6.0% |32,437 |54.1% |
|(non-Hispanic) | | | | | | |
|Asian/Pacific Islander* |38,349 |3.3% |58,483 |3.8% |20,134 |52.5% |
|American |8,393 |0.7% |10,135 |0.7% |1,742 |20.8% |
|Indian and | | | | | | |
|Alaska Native | | | | | | |
|Other |2,051 |0.2% |2,425 |0.2% |374 |18.2% |
|Two or |NA |NA |33,535 |2.17% |NA |NA |
|More races** | | | | | | |
|Total |1,170,413 |100.0% |1,545,387 |100.0% |374,974 |32.0% |
|Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|* 1990 Census did not break down these two groups. The 2000 Census breaks the group to Asian alone and Native Hawaiian and Other |
|Pacific Islander alone. For comparison purpose, the 2000 figure is the combined number. |
|** 1990 Census did not have two or more races category. 2000 Census was the first census in which residents could mark more than |
|one race category |
|TABLE II-2 |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY POPULATION BY AGE |
| |1990 |2000 |
|Age < 18 Yrs. |333,468 (29%) |468,691 (30%) |
|Age 18- 64 Yrs. |683,055 (58%) |880,732 (57%) |
|65 & over |153,890 (13%) |195,964 (13%) |
| Total |1,170,413 (100%) |1,545,387 (100%) |
|Median Age |31.5 |33.1 |
|Source: 1990 & 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|TABLE II-3 |
|INCOME DISTRIBUTION IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|Household Income |Total Households |Percent |
|Less than $10,000 |43,183 |8.5 % |
|$10,000 to $14,999 |32,150 |6.3 % |
|$15,000 to $24,999 |67,446 |13.3 % |
|$25,000 to $34,999 |62,801 |12.4 % |
|$35,000 to $49,999 |82,700 |16.3 % |
|$50,000 to $74,999 |100,840 |19.9 % |
|$75,000 to $99,999 |56,058 |11.1 % |
|$100,000 to $149,999 |41,953 |8.3 % |
|$150,000 to $199,999 |9,840 |1.9 % |
|$200,000 or more |9,810 |1.9 % |
|Total |506,781 |100.0 % |
|Median Family Income: $48,409; Median Household Income: $42,887 |
|Source: 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|Table II-4: LOW AND VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|Households by income |Renters |
| | |Small |Large related|All other |Total |Total Owners|Total |
| |Elderly 1&2 |Related |5 or more |HSE |Renters | |House- |
| |Households |2-4 | | | | |holds |
|< = 50 MFI |12,603 |22,415 |11,967 |13,749 |60,734 |50,441 |111,175 |
| >50 to< = 80% |4,794 |14,496 |7,155 |7,358 |33,803 |51,733 |85,536 |
|> 80% |5,964 |27,359 |10,464 |17,424 |61,211 |245,605 |306,816 |
|Total Households | 23,361 |64,270 |29,586 |38,531 |155,748 |347,779 |503,520 |
|Source: HUD CHAS Data based on 2000 Census |
|TABLE II-5 |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY HOUSING STOCK |
| |1990 |2000 |Percent Change |
|Single Family Units |274,915 (57%) |356,447 (61%) |30% |
|Multiple Family Units |129,846 (27%) |145,366 (25%) |12% |
|Mobile Homes |74,317 (15%) |76,411 (13%) |3% |
|Other |4,769 (1%) |6,450 (1%) |35% |
|(Boat, RV, etc) | | | |
|Total |483,847 (100%) |584,674 (100%) |21% |
|Source: 1990 & 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|TABLE II-6 |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY COST OF HOUSING |
| |1990 |2000 |Percent Change |
|Median Home Value |$139,100 |$146,500 |5 % |
|Median Rent |$572 |$660 |15 % |
|Median Household Income |$33,081 |$42,887 |30 % |
|Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|TABLE II-7 |
|PERSONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND POVERTY LEVEL STATUS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
| |Poverty Level Status |% of Race Below Poverty |
|Race/ | | |
|Ethnicity | | |
| |Below Poverty |At or above Poverty |Below Poverty |
| |1990 |2000 |1990 |2000 |1990 |2000 |
|White |80,698 |110,050 |797,694 |882,747 |7.1% |7.3% |
|Asian/Pac. Islander |6,465 |8,119 |34,089 |48,458 |0.5% |0.6% |
|Black |11,377 |18,591 |47,478 |71,798 |1 % |1.2% |
|Other* |33,150 |77,324 |133,034 |294,066 |2.9% |5.1% |
|Total |131,690 |214,084 |1,012,295 |1,297,069 |11.5% |14.2% |
|Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau |
|* Include American Indian, Alaska Native, and two or more races |
|TABLE II-8 |
|LANDLORD TENANT COMPLAINTS FILED/MEDIATED/REFERRED |
|IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND CDBG COOPERATING CITIES: |
|JULY 1995 – JUNE 2002 |
|Time Period |Complaints* |Referred to: |Cases |
| |Filed |PHA/Agency/Attorney** |Mediated *** |
|FY 95-96 |5,459 |3,295 |143 |
|FY 96-97 |6,554 |679 |102 |
|FY 97-98 |7,632 |689 |102 |
|FY 98-99 |7,014 |874 |208 |
|FY 99-00 |6,824 |558 |117 |
|FY 00-01 |9,329 |685 |79 |
|FY 01-02 |7,594 |1,088 |223 |
|Total |50,406 |7,868 |974 |
|Percent |100 % |16 % |2 % |
|of Total | | | |
|* All inquiries regarding landlord tenant issues are logged by the FHCRC as “complaints” and reported to the County as such on |
|FHCRC’s Client Service Data Sheets. However, according to the FHCRC, many “complaints” are, in fact, requests for public |
|information and/or clarifications regarding landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities, etc. Further support for this is based on |
|the fact that only a small percentage of inquiries appear to actually turn into cases that are either mediated or referred to an |
|attorney for litigation. |
|** This category of inquiries refers to questions affecting Section 8 status, other related issues, and unlawful detainer where |
|legal help is needed and are referred to a local housing authority or other agency. The FHCRC has a legal services referral list of|
|lawyers and public interest law firms that can help clients with legal issues relating to landlord/tenant problems. |
|***The FHCRC provides mediation services between landlords/managers and tenants in an attempt to resolve disputes in cases where |
|there is a breakdown in communication between the parties. |
|Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Inc. |
|TABLE II-9 |
|DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS BY CLASSIFICATION |
|FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND CDBG COOPERATING CITIES: |
|JULY 1995 – JUNE 2002 |
|Time Period |
|* The Fair Employment and Housing Act, of which the Rumford Fair Housing Act is now a part, is the primary state law banning |
|discrimination in housing accommodations. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was passed by the state legislature to ban discrimination in |
|all business establishments. While prohibiting the more common types of discrimination, the Unruh Act has also been interpreted to|
|prohibit housing discrimination against children as well as on any arbitrary basis, whether or not that basis is enumerated in the |
|Act. |
|TABLE II-10 |
|DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS RESOLUTIONS FOR |
|RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND COOPERATING CITIES: JULY 1995 – JUNE 2002 |
|Time |
|Period |
|* In general, cases that are pending include the following: those waiting for the completion of testing or the evaluation of |
|completed testing information; those in need of additional legal documentation; those waiting for additional information from the |
|client; and/or those waiting for evaluation, direction and/or additional information from HUD or DFEH. Pending cases are carried |
|over on a month-to-month basis. |
|TABLE II-11 |
|BASIS OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY HUD |
|FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY: JULY 1996 – JUNE 2002 |
|Basis of Complaints* |
|* The number of basis may be greater than the total number of complaints filed because a complaint can be filed more than one basis. |
|TABLE II-12 |
|TOTAL NUMBER OF DISCRIMINATION CASES FILED |
|FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|1996-1997 |1997-1998 |1998-1999 |1999-2000 |2000-2001 |2001-2002 |
|38 |36 |44 |40 |42 |47 |
|Source: Department of Fair Employment and Housing |
|TABLE II-13 |
|CLOSING CATEGORIES OF CASES FILED FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY |
|Basis of complaint |1996-1997 |1997-1998 |1998-1999 |1999-2000 |2000-2001 |2001-2002 |
|Complainant not available |6 |4 |1 |2 |2 |3 |
|Complainant failed to cooperate |1 |0 |1 |1 |0 |0 |
|Processing waived to another agency |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |7 |
|Successful Conciliation |11 |8 |19 |8 |11 |18 |
|No Probable Cause |13 |16 |25 |24 |22 |15 |
|Withdrawal with Resolution |0 |4 |1 |3 |2 |0 |
|Withdrawal without Resolution |0 |4 |2 |2 |3 |2 |
|Pretrial Settlement |3 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|Transferred to Court: Case dismissed |1 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |
|Total |38 |36 |44 |40 |41** |47** |
|Source: Department of Fair Employment and Housing |
|** Open Cases |
SECTION III
IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
A. OBTAINING HOUSING
1. Real Estate Practices
The primary methods of acquiring owner-occupied housing in Riverside County are purchases of existing homes through licensed real estate agents and purchases in new home developments. Some housing is also sold through auctions and directly from seller to buyer without a licensed real estate agent. Licensed real estate agents handle most resale housing purchases, although some new housing developers use local real estate agents rather than setting up their own sales offices. Licensed real estate agents also represent some buyers at auctions. New home developments usually establish a sales office on-site and employ their own licensed sales agents.
The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) licenses real estate agents as either real estate salespersons or real estate brokers. Real estate salespersons must take a course in Principles of Real Estate and pass a DRE-administered test in order to become licensed. Two additional classes are required within the first 18 months, and additional continuing education is required prior to license renewal.
Fair housing is one of the topics mandated by DRE in the Principles of Real Estate class; in addition, there is a fair housing continuing education requirement. Most real estate agents also join the California Association of Realtors( and are thus entitled to use the Realtor( designation. Real estate salespeople must work under the direction of a licensed real estate broker. Real estate brokers must take eight courses covering various aspects of real estate and pass a broker exam administered by DRE, as well as additional continuing education courses for license renewal.
Real estate brokers and offices are generally members of a local board or association of realtors. The local board or association typically runs a Multiple Listing Service (MLS), which lists properties for sale. Properties can only be entered into the MLS by members, thus limiting participation to properties that have been listed for sale by a real estate broker, or by a salesperson under the direction of a broker. Most resale homes in Riverside County are sold through real estate offices, utilizing the MLS.
Most real estate agents work on a commission basis; typically, the commission is paid by the seller out of the proceeds of the sale. The buyer and seller may have the same agent, or they may have separate agents. Due to this structure, the real estate agent typically works for the seller rather than the buyer. In new home developments, unless the builder is allowing broker participation, the agent is working for the seller and not the buyer. This is important to note, as the buyer’s interests may not be fully protected if the agent is working for the seller.
2. Sale and Rental of Housing
Housing for rent in Riverside County may be offered in one of several ways: through a property management company; through an on-site rental office; through a real estate office; or directly by the owner. In all cases, the person or firm offering the property for rent is working on behalf of the owner and representing the owner’s interests, and not that of the prospective tenant.
In all situations where the property owner engages another party to offer the property for rent, the person or firm providing this service must be licensed by the Department of Real Estate as a property manger or real estate broker. As noted previously, the DRE’s licensing process includes some education on fair housing issues. In cases where the owner is offering the property directly, the owner is not required to be licensed and may not be aware of fair housing requirements. Violations of fair housing practices may occur due to lack of awareness, misunderstanding, or the commission of intentional acts.
3. Fair Housing Audit Update
The Riverside County Fair Housing Audit was conducted to determine the existence of discriminatory practices in the sale and/or the housing rental markets within targeted county areas. Testing was conducted in four CDBG cooperating cities (Blythe, La Quinta, Murrieta, and Temecula) and two unincorporated communities (Ripley and Thermal).
As stated in the Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003, the primary purpose of the audit was to detect possible discriminatory practices against race, which is one of the Federal and State protected classes. Therefore, the audit should be used as a tool in conjunction with other information in formulating a plan of action.
Auditors were paired off for each individual audit site, and were chosen for similar characteristics with the exception that one was to be African American and the other Caucasian. The auditors were of approximately the same age, average looking, female, and given equal and acceptable credit requirements. Therefore, a difference in treatment could only be attributed to the audit’s single differentiating characteristic, race.
The following four basic categories were used to determine if any discrimination, subtle or otherwise, could be found: 1) availability; 2) terms and conditions; 3) tenant qualifications; and 4) courtesy/overall contribution. Audit sites were selected at random within the target areas.
a. Rental Housing
15 validated tests were conducted in relation to rental housing in the six target areas. An evaluation of the 15 tests reveals the following: 11 incidences of differential treatment; three sites indicated no difference of treatment; and one site noted “N/A” (inability to collect data). Of the incidences noted, 53% showed “no difference”; 30% favored the Caucasian tester; and 10% favored the African American tester.
Most incidences of preferential treatment were noted under the “courtesy/contribution category;” while the categories of “availability” and “terms & conditions” indicated equal preferential treatment to both races though at different sites. Preferential treatment was noted in approximately 40% of the validated tests conducted.
b. Real Estate Sales
12 validated tests were conducted in relation to the sale of housing in four of the audit sites. Thermal and Ripley do not have a realty office; therefore, no real estate sales audits were conducted in those communities. As for the other sites, the Caucasian tester received preferential treatment 19% of the time, and “no difference” was noted 81% of the time for the rest of the validated tests conducted within this category. Preferential treatment fell under the categories of “availability” and “courtesy/contribution”.
c. Financing (Mortgage Lending)
As previously discussed, the Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003 included proactive testing of home finance companies. Of the 15 test sites, 48% of the time there was no evidence of preferential treatment. It was noted that, for two of the audit sites in the City of Blythe, loan agents were unavailable on the day of the test. Within itself, this failure to have someone available on site constitutes a barrier to housing opportunities even though both auditors were provided with the same information. Also, there are no realty offices or lending institutions in the communities of Thermal and Ripley.
At the remaining ten Audit Sites, the Caucasian tester received differential treatment in the categories of “availability” (3%) and “courtesy/contribution” (50%), while preferential treatment was shown to the African American in the category of “courtesy/contribution” at Audit Site 1 in La Quinta and Audit Site 2 in Murrieta. This illustrates subtle differential treatment based on race from some lenders in Riverside County.
The subtleness of discrimination can be pinpointed as to how easily information was obtained from the agent (mortgage officer) and how detailed the information was in regards to loans. While courtesy/contribution is an important component of the lending process, and can encourage or discourage one from seeking home financing, differential treatment in the area of terms and conditions is a more blatant form of discrimination.
4. Publicly Assisted Rental Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside administers the Section 8 Voucher Choice Program for Riverside County and currently operates tenant based rental assistance programs serving homeless mentally ill clients in eastern and western Riverside County. During 2001 and 2002 Housing Authority staff compiled a list of 271 landlords in Riverside County that do not accept Section 8 Vouchers based on comments from Section 8 participants looking for housing.
One reason attributed to the unwillingness of landlords to rent to Section 8 recipients is that established fair market rents do not keep up with changing market rents in Riverside County on an annual basis. Landlords are more reluctant to rent to Section 8 voucher holders when the payment standards are too low. Rapidly changing markets in neighboring counties further reduce the availability of rental housing due to the influx of renters relocating to Riverside County for affordable rental housing. When changes to the rental market are not responded to quickly, Section 8 voucher holders are severely limited in their choices for suitable housing and frequently rent in high poverty areas, resulting in high concentrations of public housing recipients in those areas.
Another reason for the refusal by landlords to accept Section 8 and other forms of public housing subsidy is a perception that recipients of public rental assistance are irresponsible tenants. This particularly applies to mentally ill recipients. They have a problem finding suitable housing because many landlords refuse to rent to them. When they do locate housing, their illness often interferes with their ability to comply with the lease agreement or program responsibilities.
The Housing Authority has enlisted the help of the Department of Mental Health to assist mentally ill clients by speaking to the landlord on behalf of the client. However, client confidentiality issues frequently impede communication between the Housing Authority, Department of Mental Health, and the landlord. For non-mentally ill Section 8 recipients, Housing Authority staff provides information to clients during voucher briefings to assist them in locating suitable housing and dealing with reluctant landlords. However, many Section 8 recipients could use additional counseling on how to seek housing to assist them in this process and help them secure housing in low-poverty areas, as defined by HUD. Landlord education about the Section 8 program is also needed.
5. Financing: Evaluation of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Reports and CRA Ratings
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Reports and Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Public Evaluations were evaluated for lenders operating in Riverside County, in order to assess local lending practices and identify obstacles in obtaining home loans.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires that federal financial institution supervisory agencies to evaluate each lender’s performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its community. Upon completion of a CRA examination, an overall CRA Rating is assigned using a four-tiered rating system. These ratings are: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance. EDA reviewed the most recent available CRA ratings for 14 lenders operating in Riverside County. Of the 14 lenders evaluated, 12 were rated “Satisfactory”, and two were rated “Outstanding”. The CRA data can be found in Appendix E.
EDA analyzed 2002 HMDA data for owner-occupied loans to determine existence of disparate lending practices based on race, and to identify the primary reasons given for denial of a loan. The findings of the analysis are shown in Tables III-1, III-2, III-3, and III-4. The HMDA data used for the analysis can be found in Appendix F.
As illustrated in Table III-2, Joint (White/Other Race) applicants had the highest loan origination rate at 66.7%, followed by White applicants (66.4%), Asian/Pacific Islander applicants (63%) and “Other” applicants (60.3%). Hispanic, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native and “Race Not Available” Applicants had loan origination rates from 41.3% to 59%. When the loan origination rate is shown relative to the percentage of applicants by race, Joint applicants and White applicants were approved in higher proportions, and Black, Hispanic, Native American and Race Not Available applicants were denied in higher proportions.
The information in Table III-3 supports the assertion that low and very low-income applicants are denied loans at higher rates than higher income applicants. The loan denial rates for very low-income applicants (earning less than 50% of median income) and low-income applicants (earning 50-79% of median income) are 33.2% and 23.5% respectively, compared to 18.4% for applicants earning 100-119% of median income and 14.9% for applicants earning 120% or more of median income.
Reasons for loan denial by lending institutions did not vary significantly based on race. The primary reasons for denial for all race and income categories were credit history, “other”, and debt-to-income ratio, based on the information in Table III-4. A higher percentage (29.6%) of very low-income applicants were denied based on debt-income ratio compared to the other income categories, followed by low-income applicants with a 22.9% denial rate.
Based on the above information, race is a distinguishing factor in loan approvals to some extent, although income and credit related issues are a factor in all race categories. The availability of fair housing counseling and awareness training will benefit applicants that believe they have been denied loan approval based on race. Low and very low-income home mortgage applicants would likely benefit from homebuyer education and credit counseling as well as fair housing awareness training.
B. PUBLIC POLICIES AND ACTIONS
1. Background
The 1995 Fair Housing Impediments Study included review of public policy documents for six CDBG Cooperating Cities. This Fair Housing Impediments Study is an update and reviews public policy and documents related to goals, policies, and programs for all 14 Cooperating Cities. In the previous study, a questionnaire was developed as an instrument to measure potential impediments to fair housing, evaluating each city’s general plan, zoning ordinance, the County’s Comprehensive General Plan, and Land Use Ordinance No. 348. In this study, the questionnaire was updated to include a General Plan Land Use Designation table containing information regarding: zoning, density, minimum lot and unit size, land use description, and the percentage of residential land use covering the city. The results of the questionnaire for the Cooperating Cities, including the cities’ programs and policies that are directly related, are included at the end of the document in Appendix G.
This study looks at the important resources that are available to provide affordable housing opportunities and reviews any restrictions that would exclude the development of affordable housing. The questionnaire reviews the Zoning Ordinance for each jurisdiction, the most common method for implementing the General Plan, and any inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance.
The primary resources for affordable housing are redevelopment funds and the availability of land designated for residential development. For Redevelopment Funds, State Redevelopment law requires local redevelopment agencies to create a 20% Low and Moderate Income Housing Set-Aside fund (L & M Fund). The fund receives 20% of the tax increment revenues for a particular project area in order to purchase, build or otherwise provide affordable housing.
The Redevelopment Agencies for the cities have been successful in the production and preservation of affordable housing. The Cooperating Cities are assisted through the County’s first time homebuyer programs for the very low income. Single family rehabilitation projects are funded through grants and loans. Developers are assisted through the Riverside County Economic Development Agency for the creation of multi-family units and single family homes.
2. Zoning Ordinances
The potential for any significant impediment to fair housing was determined through an assessment of the public polices, programs, and zoning ordinances in relation to the community’s uniqueness. The zoning ordinance for each jurisdiction was reviewed for restrictive and excessive development standards or governmental constraints that can be impediments to fair housing affecting affordable housing developments. The zoning ordinance complies with the amount of density and type of housing developed through the land use designations in the Land Use Element.
The housing programs of the various jurisdictions were reviewed along with zoning requirements and the cities accomplishments regarding affordable housing. State law requires that the zoning ordinances must be consistent with the general plan. Although “restrictive and excessive development standards implemented through zoning ordinances” can be impediments to fair housing limiting the affordability and housing choice, there were a number of minor regulatory constraints to the further development of affordable housing that were observed:
a. Minimum Standards
• The County and cities set minimum floor space standards for multifamily and single family projects. For example, the City of Norco has included minimum multifamily floor standards from 750 S.F. for an efficiency unit, to 1200 S.F. for the size of a single family unit in a residential zone. The City of Blythe uses a broader standard in which an efficiency unit is 400 S.F. where single family and/or multifamily projects can exist in any residential zone, except industrial or commercial.
• The City of Norco continues to indicate in their zoning ordinance a low density designation with a maximum density for single family of 4 units per acre requiring a minimum of 600 S.F. of open space to be allocated for each unit constructed.
• Other cities, such as Desert Hot Springs and Perris, require that multifamily projects provide amenities such as a pool, spa, barbecue pit and tot lot depending on the number of units within a multi-family project; however, these amenities, along with open space requirements, can add to the cost of discretionary items by the Planning Commission.
• The Cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Blythe have developed polices for congregate care and accessibility requirements for the physically disabled in the general plan, but do not have specific regulations for the development of accessible units in their zoning ordinance. The Cities of Temecula, La Quinta, Norco, San Jacinto, and Perris have restrictions for senior housing in their zoning ordinance.
b. Density Bonus
Since the 1995 Fair Housing Impediments Study, 12 out of the 14 Cooperating Cities have adopted an ordinance reflecting state-mandated density bonus rules. Two cities (Norco and Canyon Lake) do not offer incentives for affordable housing developments. The City of Norco established density bonuses as a policy issue in that incentives are provided through the Redevelopment Agency and approved by the city council for infill housing on a case-by-case basis. As previously mentioned, cities are required by the state to adopt a density bonus program for low-and-moderate developments, which restrict their units to very low, low or moderate-income households. Cities shall allow a density bonus of 25% over the underlying zoning designations, thus increasing the availability of affordable housing. Multifamily complexes and senior units were developed granting density bonuses in which units were for handicapped residents. For example, the Planning Department for the County addressed the density program as a policy issue on a case-by-case basis through the R-6 (Residential Incentive) Zoning.
c. Removal of Low Income Housing
Regarding issues of removal of low-income housing, no city has reported displacement of low-income households due to demolition of residential units in which relocation of residents were required.
d. Mobile Homes
Since the California Legislature has indicated a need to eliminate the differences between mobile home development and conventional forms of residential land use, and has enacted Section 65852.7 of the Government Code and amended Section 18300 of the Health and Safety Code to permit mobile home parks in residential zones, most cities allowed mobile home developments in other areas designated for residential zoning. The Cities of Banning, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Murrieta, Norco do not permit mobile home parks in other zones.
e. Fair Housing
• The Cities of Beaumont and Temecula referenced the promotion of a discussion of fair housing in their zoning ordinance.
The Cities of Beaumont, La Quinta, and Norco discuss fair housing issues in their zoning ordinance. Only the Cities of Canyon Lake and Desert Hot Springs do not reference fair housing issues in their zoning ordinances.
3. General Plans
All Cooperating Cities that have submitted their General Plans indicated whether or not the jurisdiction has an approved housing element that was determined by HCD to be in compliance with State Law. The General Plans discuss how the jurisdiction proposes to further fair housing, make provisions accessible to persons with disabilities, provide incentives for affordable housing, and restrict land use. An evaluation of the questionnaire regarding information provided from the General Plans indicated that there were currently fewer potential impediments to fair housing than there were at the time of the preparation of the 1995 Study.
All cities that utilize federal funding are required to submit their Housing Element to HCD for approval. As of December 12, 2002, the cities of Blythe, La Quinta, Norco, and Riverside County have draft documents that have been adopted by each jurisdiction pending review with HCD. The Cities of Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Perris, and Temecula have made changes in their zoning code and have Housing Elements that are in compliance with HCD. These cities discussed the incentives for the production of affordable housing in their Housing Element of the General Plan. The Cities of Banning, Canyon Lake, Indio, Norco, and San Jacinto do not have approved Housing Elements and are out of compliance with HCD.
The Cities of Banning, Beaumont, San Jacinto, Perris, Temecula, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Lake Elsinore, La Quinta, Murrieta, and Norco discuss density bonuses incentives in both the zoning ordinances and in the General Plan. Through policies relating to fair housing, each has indicated what housing opportunities are available within the respective city.
4. Fair Housing
An impediment to fair housing would be in the form of discrimination against a particular group or gender of people, which is expressly forbidden by state and federal laws.
a. Review of Housing Elements
The Housing Element for each of the jurisdictions was reviewed. Each city is required to enforce laws and policies pertaining to equal housing opportunity and fair housing. Each jurisdiction indicated that fair housing policies were in effect and discrimination complaints were referred to fair housing groups and the FHCRC.
b. Polices to Further Fair Housing
All jurisdictions and the County addressed affordable housing programs and all indicated their policy to further fair housing. All jurisdictions, including the County, indicated that they had reduced or eliminated impediments to low-income housing.
c. City of Norco
The City of Norco, which is persistent in preserving its historical animal keeping and small plot agriculture zoning, is reaching build-out condition in its residential zones. There is little land available for the construction of new units in any substantial numbers. The City uses its redevelopment funds, and various state and federal funds, to preserve existing housing stock at price levels affordable to very low and low-income households.
d. Personnel
A constraint that can prevent applicants from obtaining low-income housing is a personnel issue. The pool of knowledgeable individuals available to assist applicants is small. To remedy this, jurisdictions have been providing information pamphlets at various locations throughout their city making people aware of the city’s housing programs. For example, the City of Norco has chosen to employ a Fair Housing Counselor at their Community Center twice during the week.
5. Housing Programs
All cooperating cities, except the City of Canyon Lake, have utilized the County’s housing programs. Canyon Lake has not promoted the development of any affordable housing, and no new affordable housing has been constructed in this city.
6. Evaluations of Housing Element Goals and Policies -Observations
The following observations were made regarding the 14 cooperating cities in relation to the issues of affordable housing:
a. Regular Density Analysis
• Affordable housing tends to be developed at the highest density range.
• Several cities have large land areas that are needed for substantial residential growth in which there are a wide range of housing types and densities. For instance, in the County’s R-HD zoning designation (Residential High Density), more multifamily projects can be built in comparison to a low-density residential zoning for single family homes. The R-HD zoning designation then becomes an impediment to the development of affordable single family housing. The end result is that fewer affordable single family homes will be built.
• All Cooperating Cities provided information that was presented on the Land Use Table in which the zoning code was identified and density information reviewed for each city to insure residential sites are available for the future construction of services and public facilities for the development of a variety of housing types, sizes and prices.
• Land use designations in the surveyed cities’ General Plans were evaluated. No single city was determined to use restrictive growth control policies. However, the City of Canyon Lake’s land use area was deemed to be “exclusive”, and was not available for the development of low-income housing.
b. Special Needs Policy/Program
Concern for affordability for senior residents on fixed retirement incomes has been addressed in each Housing Element. To address the needs of the senior population, the cities receive assistance through the County’s Economic Development Agency, which provides CDBG funds for an Enhanced Senior Home Repair Program. RDA and CDBG funds are provided for the Home Rehabilitation Program available for qualifying residents in the unincorporated areas or within the Cooperating Cities’ limits.
The information provided from each city’s General Plan and Housing Element identifies the needs of single parent families, female-headed households, and disabled persons. Single individuals with children need housing that is affordable and close to day care facilities and schools.
The Cities are typically allocating their set-aside funds from the Redevelopment Agencies for programs to meet State-mandated needs of the first-time home buyers, large families, female headed households, single parent families, senior citizens, handicapped and homeless individuals, and to expand housing opportunities for these households. In addition, cities such as Cathedral City, Lake Elsinore, and Norco have an active city sponsored Home Improvement Repair Program that includes a sewer connection program to connect to the city’s sewer system for those homeowners currently using a septic system.
The City of Indio has a multi-family rental or owner-occupied program in which housing units must be constructed with three and four bedroom units to serve the special needs of farm workers or large families.
7. Bond Financing
Bond financed projects with affordability restrictions have a limitation on the number of years the affordability restrictions can remain in place. Early pay off of the project financing can be a potential impediment and have a significant impact on the availability of affordable housing within the community. None of the cities reported have any units at the risk of conversion. However, cities have tried to implement affordability restrictions with the longest feasible time. Potential investors interested in purchasing existing low-income housing developments and/or developers exploring the fiscal attributes of building low-income housing are often deterred by long-term affordability restrictions. They see these restrictions as a bad investment in that it limits their ability to sell or modify the housing units over the long term.
8. Taxation
Potential factors that pose a constraint on affordable housing and create a potential impediment to fair housing along with property taxes are utility users taxes. In conjunction with high property taxes, which increase monthly payments and make monthly payments unaffordable and prevent very low and low income homeowners from purchasing a home or maintaining an apartment, taxes on utilities is a minor constraint; however, it is a potential impediment to affordable housing. Out of the 14 Cooperating Cities surveyed, only three cities have imposed a utility tax. The Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Indio impose a 5% utility tax while the City of Beaumont has the lowest utility tax at 3%. In addition to customary utility tax charges for water, gas, and electric, the City of Indio imposes a fee for inter-state phone service and cable. The City of Desert Hot Springs charges a 5% tax, 50% allocated to public safety and 50% allocated for the police. In 2005, the City of Desert Hot Springs will also be imposing a utility tax to pay bankruptcy issues for the City. The County, in an effort to reduce any restraints for affordable housing, attempts to keep taxes in the unincorporated areas to a minimum and does not have a tax on utilities.
C. HOUSING PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES
Housing Authority
The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside is subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11063, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Age Discrimination Act of 1973 and the HUD regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws.
All documents related to Nondiscrimination in Housing have been approved and comply with the requirements by HUD and therefore are not considered an impediment to fair housing.
2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)/Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs
a. CDBG Program Contract Format
The “Sponsor’s Agreement” for the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds was submitted by EDA in the previous study, was approved, and is in compliance with all laws and regulations.
The contract utilized for Cooperating Cities is called a “Supplemental Agreement for the Use of Community Development Block Grant Funds.” This agreement was addressed in the previous study, approved, and is in compliance with federal requirements for nondiscrimination.
b. HOME Program Contract Format
The County updated its “covenant agreement” to indicate the responsibilities of the applicant pertaining to fair housing law. Language referencing fair housing law has been included in the “Affordability Covenant”. In the Agreement Containing Covenants Affecting Real Property, under Article 3, there is a Non-Discrimination Covenant and non-discrimination clauses.
3. Complying Programs/Non-Impediments
The following items were omitted in this study since the documents and agreements have been approved by HUD and are not considered impediments:
a. Redevelopment Program
County Format for the Use of Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds: Riverside County’s program was approved by HUD in the previous study.
b. Emergency Shelter Grants Program
Contract Format for the Use of Emergency Shelter Grant Funds: Riverside County Nonprofit providers approved by HUD in previous study.
c. Fair Housing Outreach: CDBG Grantee and Service Recipients
FHCRC has an extensive outreach program that includes, but is not limited to, educational workshops, technical training programs, and general public awareness activities. Aside from providing technical assistance to the general public, FHCRC is called upon to train the real estate and lending industry, and governmental agencies on fair housing practices.
Public Awareness. FHCRC’s mission is to educate the public of their services and issues regarding fair housing laws. Not only is this accomplished through the print-media/web-site/public television and radio, but through direct visibility within the community – community meetings, activities, non-profit events, and holding a seat on different commissions and boards throughout the County. Their tireless efforts have included, but not been limited to, the following:
• Home Buyer Seminars, “Stepping Stones to Home Purchasing”, were held throughout the County to equip homeowner customers with the necessary skills needed to purchase a home.
• A Relocation Task Force was formed to assist mobile home park tenants through steps in preparation for the closure of their park.
• Participation in the HUD Mobile Home Park Review Committee meetings to address major owner/tenant issues.
• FHCRC’s staff, display, and marketing materials (English/Spanish) are found wherever a community/city is holding an event (e.g. City of Riverside - Wednesday Farmers Market, Social in the Park, Apartment Association Greater Inland Empire Expo-Educational Conference, Mecca Farm Worker Appreciation Fair, United Farm Workers Union, and Indio Date Festival).
Technical Training Programs. FHCRC conducts comprehensive Fair Housing Training Workshops for real estate, mortgage lending and insurance industries, non-profits, and government agencies. Topics covered are: State and Federal Fair Housing Laws, Discriminatory Policies and Practices, Non-Discriminatory Advertising, and Servicing Seniors and the Disabled.
• Cannon Management, Steadfast Management, and Satellite Management. Over 115 apartment managers attended the Fair Housing Workshops. Participants were furnished with technical skills and information to combat housing discrimination and how to measure their compliance with Federal and State Fair Housing laws.
Educational Workshops. Workshops are an integral part of all public education activities provided by FHCRC. Through the Council’s experience, they have discovered this provides the presenter and the participant an opportunity to learn about specifics, ask questions, and meet one-on-one for personal assistance. FHCRC generally incorporates this into their activity venue.
D. SUMMARY OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING
1. Background
It is the goal of the County of Riverside to eliminate any existing and (to the maximum extent possible) prevent future housing discrimination and other impediments to equal housing opportunity within the unincorporated County as well as in all 14 CDBG Cooperating Cities. To help make this objective a reality, the County has contracted with FHCRC to provide fair housing services to the unincorporated portion of the County and the Cooperating Cities.
FHCRC is a nonprofit corporation that maintains offices in the Cities of Riverside, Palm Springs, Coachella, Moreno Valley, and two satellite offices, one in the City of Corona and the other in the City of Norco. It provides services to the County and the aforementioned cooperating cities through the following activities: education and outreach (workshops, seminars, and presentations) relating to fair housing laws; training, technical assistance, and testing, such as the testing conducted for and described in this report, to ensure compliance with fair housing laws; processing of housing discrimination complaints; resolution of landlord/tenant disputes; and ensuring that the rights of those who are victims of housing discrimination are enforced through the California State Department of Fair Employment and Housing and/or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
a. Financial Plan
Fair housing services are provided by FHCRC to the County and the Cooperating Cities through a contract that is subject to renewal on a yearly basis. The County contracts for the provision of all services required for compliance with all federal and state programs and laws affecting fair housing in the unincorporated County as well as the 14 CDBG cooperating cities. Fair housing services are paid for through the CDBG program.
FHCRC’s most recent contract with the County (for Fiscal Year 2003/2004) is in the amount of $190,000. While the exact amount of funding available for future fair housing services cannot be predicted in advance, the County will continue to provide for such services to the greatest extent that it is financially possible.
b. Future Updates
It is anticipated that any future revisions of the Fair Housing Impediments Study (FHIS) will continue to follow the time frame of the County’s Consolidated Plan (a five year strategic plan). Thus a major update of data contained in the FHIS could be expected in the year 2008, when the next Consolidated Plan is scheduled for preparation. However, changes in actions to eliminate current impediments and prevent future impediments to fair housing should be implemented, as needed, on a yearly basis. Such changes should be based on the results of testing and other program strategies and objectives assigned to and accomplished by FHCRC. Changes in strategies and/or program objectives should be incorporated into the renewal of FHCRC’s contract at the beginning of each year.
2. Summary of Impediments
Illegal discrimination is not always overt and can be empirically difficult to prove. The mere filing of a complaint alleging housing discrimination neither proves nor disproves the allegation. However, when large numbers of the same types of complaints are received over a measured period of time, and by more than one agency, it is reasonable to conclude that a problem exists.
As can be seen from the data in this report, housing discrimination complaints based on race are the basis for most complaints. An analysis of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reports indicated the existence of differential treatment in the availability of mortgage financing based on race.
Furthermore, while issues relating to family status/children were not evaluated in the Fair Housing Audit, disparate treatment of testers based on race was found in a number of instances in the rental and sale of, as well as in the financing of, housing. The results of the Fair Housing Audit tend to coincide with and lend support to the aforementioned assertion that the consistently high numbers of complaints filed with FHCRC and HUD, based on race, may be indicators of a housing discrimination problem, even though each complaint ultimately must be validated on its own merits.
In short, an evaluation of data contained in this report suggest that housing discrimination persists countywide, in subtle and not so subtle forms, particularly in the categories of race and family status, and in the mortgage lending industry. The following is a summary of issues discussed in the report that could be considered significant impediments to fair housing countywide.
a. Unequal Treatment In The Sale And Rental Of Housing
Proactive testing conducted by FHCRC revealed that preferential treatment was given to Caucasian testers, and in some instances to African American testers in the sale and rental housing audits.
b. Discrimination In Housing Accessibility
During the time period examined in this report, discrimination complaints received by FHCRC falling under the categories of race and family status (children) constituted 26% and 21% of the complaints, respectively, or 47% of the complaints received in both the unincorporated County as well as the CDBG cooperating cities (FHCRC quarterly report figures for CDBG Cooperating Cities can include complaints from all 14 cooperating cities). Race was the single leading category of discrimination complaints.
Data provided by HUD reveals that, of all discrimination complaints originating Countywide (including non-Cooperating Cities), complaints based on race and family status (children) represented 30% and 17%, respectively, of the total.
c. Discrimination In Rates Of Housing Loan Approvals
An evaluation of HMDA data reveals that Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Hispanic loan applicants experienced loan origination rates of 54.1%, 58.2% and 59%, respectively, compared to 66.7 % for White/Other Race applicants and 66.4% for White applicants. FHCRC test results revealed differential treatment in 40% of test conducted. Preferential treatment favored the African American tester in three tests and the Caucasian tester in one test.
d. Potential Impediments Created Through Housing Elements
Several of the CDBG Cooperating Cities evaluated in this study do not have state-approved housing elements as required by law.
The zoning ordinances of several CDBG cooperating cities have not been revised to incorporated state-mandated density bonus rules for affordable housing.
Some of the CDBG cooperating cities evaluated for this report have failed to incorporate the state mandated density bonus rules into their respective zoning ordinances.
e. Shortfalls in FHCRC Data Collection
FHCRC frequently receives requests for data that they cannot always meet or generate the specific information for those requesting agencies. Presently staff collects and manually organizes the data collected for government and private agencies, and/or for public interest. FHCRC’s outdated computer equipment and software inhibits their effectiveness and the efficiency to produce a well-designed product. With the method presently in place, FHCRC has in the past been able to produce a useful product, but with rising discrimination complaints this method has become an impediment in and of itself.
f. Discrimination Based On Disabilities
Disability is the third leading category source of complaints of discrimination. Over the time period examined, disability represented 16% of the total number of complaints received by FHCRC.
Under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord is required to make a reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities. Most landlords would consider this a financial hardship and tend to avoid renting to disabled persons.
g. Reluctance to Rent to Section 8 Recipients
An impediment to fair housing among low-income households is the unwillingness of many landlords to rent to families receiving public rental assistance. Many recipients of public rental assistance have difficulty locating suitable housing, particularly in low-poverty areas.
|TABLE III-2 |
|LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY RACE |
|Race of Applicant |Loan Origination Rate |Loan Denial Rate |Other* |
|American Indian/Alaskan Native |58.2% |15.7% |26.1% |
|Asian/Pacific Islander |63.0% |13.1% |23.9% |
|Black |54.1% |20.3% |25.6% |
|Hispanic |59.0% |17.1% |23.9% |
|White |66.4% |11.6% |22.0% |
|Other |60.6% |14.0% |25.4% |
|Joint (White/Other Race) |66.7% |12.0% |21.3% |
|Race Not Available |41.3% |26.1% |32.6% |
|Source: 2002 HMDA Data |
|* The loans listed under “Other” were withdrawn, not accepted, closed or incomplete. |
|TABLE III-1 |
|LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY TYPE OF LOAN |
|Type of Loan |Percent Originated |Percent Approved But Not |Percent Denied |Percent Closed, Withdrawn|
| | |Accepted | |or Incomplete |
|FHA/FSA/RHS/VA Purchase Loans |73.1% |6.2% |8.9% |11.9% |
|Conventional Purchase Loans |64.8 |9.8% |13.2% |12.2% |
|Refinance Loans Owner Occupied |53.5% |9.4% |18.4% |18.8 |
|Home Improvement Loans- Owner Occupied |33.8% |13.8% |39.2% |13.2% |
|All Owner-Occupied Loans |56.3% |9.8% |19.9% |14.0% |
|Source: 2002 HMDA Data |
|TABLE III-4 |
|REASONS FOR DENIAL OF LOANS |
|Applicant Characteristics |Debt/ |Empl. |Credit |Collateral |Insuff. Cash/ |Credit Appl. |Other |
| |Income Ratio|History |History | |Unverifiable |Incomplete | |
| | | | | |Info. |/Mortgage Insurance | |
| | | | | | |Denied | |
|RACE |PERCENTAGE |
|American Indian/Alaskan Native |12.9% |0.7% |33.4% |18.2% |6.3% |7.3% |21.2% |
|Asian/Pacific Islander |17.4% |2.1% |30.4% |11.5% |9.5% |8.1% |21.0% |
|Black |14.9% |1.2% |36.7% |11.6% |8.2% |6.3% |21.1% |
|Hispanic |18.7% |2.0% |32.6% |11.3% |7.6% |6.0% |18.0% |
|White |16.2% |1.5% |31.6% |15.4% |6.6% |7.9% |20.7% |
|Other |18.1% |1.5% |35.6% |10.7% |6.0% |9.1% |20.6% |
|Joint |17.8% |1.9% |36.2% |14.4% |5.4% |6.0% |18.4% |
|(White/Other Race) | | | | | | | |
|Race Not Available |14.3% |1.4% |40.5% |13.4% |4.2% |8.4% |17.9% |
|INCOME |PERCENTAGE |
|Less than 50% |29.6% |2.6% |34.1% |10.3% |5.6% |3.8% |13.9% |
|of Median | | | | | | | |
|50-79% of Median |22.9% |1.6% |37.0% |11.8% |6.1% |6.0% |15.0% |
|80-99% of Median |18.0% |1.7% |38.1% |12.2% |6.0% |6.6% |16.2% |
|100-119% of Median |15.7% |1.4% |37.9% |13.1% |5.3% |8.4% |18.3% |
|120% or |11.4% |1.3% |36.3% |13.9% |6.3% |8.4% |22.2% |
|More of Median | | | | | | | |
|Income Not Available |7.7% |2.0% |32.9% |20.8% |7.0% |10.8% |18.9% |
|Source: 2002 HMDA Data |
| TABLE III-3 |
|LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY INCOME |
|Income of Applicant |Loan Origination Rate |Loan Denial Rate |Other* |
|Less than 50% of Median |38.1% |33.2% |28.7% |
|50-79% of Median |50.8% |23.5% |25.7% |
|80-99% of Median |53.4% |20.0% |26.6% |
|100%-119% of Median |55.7% |18.4% |25.9% |
|120% or More of Median |60.2% |14.9% |24.9% |
|Source: 2002 HMDA Data |
|* The loans listed under “Other” were withdrawn, not accepted, closed or incomplete. |
SECTION IV
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following paragraphs present conclusions regarding the extent of impediments to fair housing choice within Riverside County, along with recommendations for mitigating these impediments. The information presented herein is by no means comprehensive, and there undoubtedly remain a number of additional remedies to the problems faced by home seekers.
CONCLUSIONS
As stated in the conclusion to Section III, Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, housing discrimination continues to occur countywide, particularly in the categories of race and family status, and in the mortgage lending industry. Since it continues to be the goal of the County of Riverside to eliminate any existing discrimination and prevent future housing discrimination and other impediments to equal housing opportunity, the recommendations provided below have been developed as a guide for continuing to make progress in the struggle to ensure fair access to housing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Unequal Treatment In The Sale And Rental Of Housing
Recommendation: Conduct audits periodically to determine the nature, extent, and changes in housing discrimination throughout the audited cities. These audits should be expanded to include other characteristics such as Discrimination based on Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Religion, and any other protected classes defined by law. The results of the audits should be provided to FHCRC so that they can be tracked and used to supplement information routinely recorded by FHCRC’s systems.
Recommendation: Develop an anti-discrimination campaign and literature focusing on fair housing law and enforcement activities on both the purchase and rental markets.
Recommendation: Promote Fair Housing laws in the rental housing, mortgage lending and real estate sales markets within the audited cities.
Recommendation: Encourage rental property owners, managers, realtors and lending agents to provide written information to all applicants which include the listings of all available housing, standard information on the terms and conditions of the application process, posting Fair Housing informational signs, and providing Fair Housing literature.
2. Discrimination In Housing Accessibility
Recommendation: Broaden the understanding of the diversity of cultures in various communities through education, training, and outreach seminars regarding Fair Housing laws and cultural sensitivity to rental property owners, managers, and agents, as well as apartment owners associations, board of realtors, management companies, lending institutions, building industry associations, and home seekers.
3. Discrimination In Rates Of Housing Loan Approvals
Recommendation: Provide homebuyer education, credit counseling and fair housing counseling and awareness training to first time home buyers and homeowners, particularly low and very low-income applicants.
4. Potential Impediments Created Through Housing Elements
a. Potential Impediments Created Through Housing Elements
Recommendation: Ensure that CDBG cooperating cities have an approved Housing Element that incorporates state mandated density rules into their respective zoning ordinances. Not all CDBG Cooperating Cities evaluated in this study have an approved Housing Element.
Recommendation: Develop Zoning Ordinances and the General Plan throughout the County that are consistent in establishing Density Bonus projects in Mixed/Regional Commercial and High Density residential areas, and for multiple bedroom density bonus projects. Since the County’s General Plan was approved in October 9, 2003 and the zoning ordinance is not consistent with the General Plan, Riverside County is currently overhauling its zoning ordinance, and within the next 16 to 18 months will be updating the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan.
b. Potential Impediments Created through Land Use Controls
Recommendation: Establish a wider range of zoning and specific plan implementation to meet affordable housing needs by the Cooperating Cities. An assessment of current housing needs of several of the cooperating cities in this study indicated that there was not a wide range of zoning and specific plan implementation to meet the affordable housing needs, which is considered an impediment to fair housing.
Recommendation: Each CDBG Cooperating City should develop zoning codes similar to Riverside County’s Ordinance 348. The County has, through Ordinance 348, provided a wide range of residential development opportunities through land use and zoning designations and specific plan implementation to meet affordable housing needs, thereby alleviating a potential impediment to fair housing. In the County’s example, the Zoning Ordinance has historically been consistent with the General Plan, and has encouraged the development of affordable housing by establishing a specialized R-6 Zone (Residential Incentive) in which the average price of dwelling units must be affordable to families earning no more than 80% of the County median income. The County has the flexibility to increase density and thereby reduce the cost per unit and make the project more affordable under the zoning.
c. Cost of Housing as an Impediment to Fair Housing
Recommendation: Alleviate governmental constraints to include reduction in developer fees which add to the cost of housing and developer costs, a major impediment to fair housing in that the fees are passed on to the homeowner through the purchase price or the rent charged.
Recommendation: Recommend that each Cooperating City develop a fast track/priority processing system for affordable projects. The purpose of this program is to provide an incentive for the development of affordable housing. Processing procedures will be coordinated among the various affected departments through the designation of contact persons that will assist in processing the necessary permits. The type of projects which should receive priority processing include the following:
• Redevelopment Agency residential projects for low and moderate income households;
• Density bonus projects in Mixed/Regional Commercial and High Density residential areas and multiple bedroom density bonus applicants;
• Multi-family projects in redevelopment project areas which set aside 20% of units for Low Income Households; and
• Other projects that would produce housing affordable to Low and Moderate Income Households.
Recommendation: Reduce the cost of housing to the consumer, be it rental or single-family homes, through the elimination of unnecessary governmental actions, policies, and regulations.
Recommendation: Minimize the impact of non-governmental constraints beyond the control of local government that potentially can impact any action of the City or County Priority Processing. These constraints include environmental constraints that can effect and prevent housing development. The County is required to follow the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in which all proposals are reviewed for any potential impact on the environment. Mitigation measures add to the cost of housing and increase land costs.
5. Shortfalls in FHCRC Data Collection
Recommendation: FHCRC update its computer equipment and software, and provide training to staff, thereby enabling staff to keep all discrimination complaints on spreadsheets by specifics (e.g. type of complaint, location by census tract, block group, city, County Board of Supervisor’s District, etc). New computer equipment and software would maximize the effectiveness of FHCRC staff in helping to develop a tracking system to target the existence or lack of discriminatory practices, and to tailor specific remedies for problems discovered.
6. Discrimination Based On Disabilities
Recommendation: Provide education and outreach to housing providers through seminars or community workshops in educating the current law on discrimination against the disabled.
Recommendation: Expand or explore the type of disability discriminations prevalent in certain communities and target the outreach appropriately. Future audits could include wheelchair testers and other protected class group such as persons with AIDS and mentally ill persons.
Recommendation: Work in cooperation with and support the efforts of non-profit community service providers that assist disabled persons in locating suitable housing through information, referrals, and community education.
7. Reluctance to Rent to Section 8 Recipients
Recommendation: Provide information and counseling to new recipients of government rental subsidies to assist them in dealing with reluctant landlords and finding suitable housing in low poverty areas.
Recommendation: Continue to contract for services in advocacy of tenant and landlord relationships, as the successful relationship with the Inland Empire Regional Opportunity Counseling Program.
Recommendation: Complete a market rent survey using HUD-accepted methodology to document increases in countywide market rents and support proposed increases in established fair market rents.
Recommendation: Provide education and outreach pertaining to the Section 8 voucher program to rental property owners, apartment managers and apartment owners associations, with an emphasis on the potential benefits afforded under the Section 8 Program.
Appendix A
Glossary of terms
California Association of Realtors
A statewide organization of realtors formed to serve its membership in developing and promoting programs and services that will enhance the members' freedom and ability to conduct their individual businesses successfully with integrity and competency, and through collective action, to promote the preservation of real property rights.
California Consumer Price Index
An index measuring the prices at various times of a selected group of goods and services, which typify those bought by ordinary Californian households. It allows comparisons of the relative cost of living over time, and is used as a measure of inflation.
California Redevelopment Law
Section 33000 of the California Health and Safety Code assisting local jurisdictions to eliminate blight from a designated area, as well as to achieve the goals of development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts.
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
A program operated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program is codified under 24 CFR Part 570. The program provides annual grants on a formula basis to entitled cities and counties to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons.
CHAS Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
A plan formerly required of CDBG grantees until 1994. HUD commissioned a special tabulation of 1990 census data to provide CDBG grantees with useful housing data to help them complete the plan. In 1995, many grantees used this data again for their first Consolidated Plan. The current HUD requirement is a Consolidated Plan in lieu of a CHAS.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Federal legislation to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Civil Rights Act of 1968
Federal legislation, which includes within it the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Comprehensive General Plan
A planning document required by section 65300 of the California State Government Code. The document sets forth plans for zoning, transportation, housing development and land use.
Cooperating City
A city within the County of Riverside, which has signed a Three Year Cooperation Agreement and is actively participating with the County of Riverside to provide services, programs and projects eligible under the Housing and Urban Development’s Community Planning and Development’s grant funding sources.
Covenant Agreement
An agreement, required by the California Redevelopment Law for the use of Low Income Housing Set Aside Funds, imposing affordability requirements on any assisted housing unit.
CPD Community Planning and Development
A division of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development seeking to develop viable communities by promoting integrated approaches that provide decent housing, a suitable living environment, and expand economic opportunities for low and moderate income persons. The primary means toward this end is the development of partnerships among all levels of government and the private sector, including for-profit and non-profit organizations. The CPD office is responsible for the operation of the HOME Investment Partnership Act, Community Development Block Grant, and Emergency Shelter Grant programs and funds.
CRA Community Reinvestment Act
A federal statute enacted by Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and implemented by Regulations 12 CFR parts 25, 228, 345, and 563e intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate.
Debt Income Ratio
The ratio given by dividing the monthly debt by the monthly income.
Department of Mental Health
A department of the County of Riverside established to provide effective, efficient, and culturally sensitive community-based services to severely mentally disabled adults and older adults, children at risk of mental disability, substance abusers, and individuals on conservatorship that enable them to achieve and maintain their optimal level of healthy personal and social functioning.
DFEH Department of Fair Employment and Housing
A department of the State of California with a mission to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations, and from the perpetration of acts of hates violence.
DRE Department of Real Estate
A department of the State of California with a mission to protect the public in real estate transactions and provide related services to the real estate industry.
EDA Economic Development Agency
A department of the County of Riverside charged with the management and operation of programs under the California Redevelopment Law and HUD’s Community Planning and Development.
Executive Order 11063
A 1962 order by President John F. Kennedy enforcing equal opportunity in housing and preventing discrimination.
Fair Housing Act
Federal legislation first enacted in 1968 and expanded by amendments in 1974 and 1988 providing HUD with investigation and enforcement responsibilities for fair housing practices and prohibiting discrimination in housing and lending based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or familial status.
Fair Housing Choice
The ability of persons of similar income to have available to them the same housing choices without regard to race, color, religion, sex, disabilities, familial status, or national origin.
FHA Federal Housing Administration
A department of the federal government established by the National Housing Act of 1934, administered by the Assistant Secretary for Housing, who is responsible for the Department's various mortgage insurance programs promoting homeownership through government guaranteed mortgages.
FHCRC Fair Housing Council of Riverside County
A non profit organization providing comprehensive services which affirmatively address and promote fair housing (anti-discrimination) rights and further other housing opportunities for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, presence of children, disability, ancestry, marital status, or other arbitrary factors.
FSA Farm Services Agency
Formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA). This agency of the United States Department of Agriculture ensures the well-being of American agriculture, the environment and the American public through efficient and equitable administration of farm commodity programs; farm ownership, operating and emergency loans; conservation and environmental programs; emergency and disaster assistance; domestic and international food assistance and international export credit programs.
HCD Housing and Community Development
An agency of the State of California and one of thirteen (13) departments within the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency As California's principal housing agency, the mission of HCD is to provide leadership, policies and programs to expand and preserve safe and affordable housing opportunities and promote strong communities for all Californians.
HMDA Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
A federal statute enacted by Congress in 1975 and implemented by the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation C requiring lending institutions to report public loan data.
Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
A public agency chartered by the State of California to administer the development, rehabilitation or financing of affordable housing programs with a mission to provide affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities to low and moderate income families including elderly and handicapped persons, while supporting programs to foster economic self-sufficiency.
Housing Element
A required component of the Comprehensive General Plan, which plans for the appropriate level of growth in housing stock for the local jurisdiction.
HRP Home Repair Program
A program operated by the Economic Development Agency offering grants to low-income homeowners to make health and safety oriented repairs to their homes.
HUD Housing and Urban Development
A branch of the federal government created by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 with a mission to increase homeownership, support community development and increase access to affordable housing free from discrimination.
Land Use Ordinance 348
An ordinance of the County of Riverside providing for land use planning and zoning regulations and related functions.
Low Income
Income that does not exceed 80 percent of area median income.
Low Income Housing Set Aside Fund
A requirement of the California Redevelopment Law to reserve twenty percent (20%) of all funds generated by a redevelopment agency and make them available as contribution toward the provision of housing affordable to low income persons.
Low Poverty Area
A census tract where less than a ten percent (10%) incidence of household poverty exists.
MFI Median Family Income
Also referred to as Area Median Income and Area Median Family Income.
An income of a family or household size found, by the United States Census Board, to be the average income for that family or household size within local and specified geographic boundaries.
MLS Multiple Listing Service
A marketing organization composed of member brokers who agree to share their listing agreements with one another in the hope of procuring ready, willing and able buyers for their properties more quickly than they could on their own.
Moderate Income
Income that does not exceed 120 percent of area median income.
Planning Commission
A public body of the County of Riverside assembled to review proposed land uses to ensure conformity with the Comprehensive General Plan.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Federal legislation, enacted in September 1973, prohibiting federally subsidized facilities from discriminating against persons with disabilities.
RHS Rural Housing Service
An agency of the United States Department of Agriculture with a mission is to improve the quality of life in rural areas by providing funding for single family homes, apartments for low-income persons or the elderly, housing for farm laborers, childcare centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes and schools.
SHR Senior Home Repair
A program operated by the Economic Development Agency offering grants to very low-income senior or disabled homeowners to make health and safety oriented repairs to their homes.
Section 8 Voucher Program
Tenant based rental assistance via housing assistance payments authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Sponsor Agreement
An agreement between the County of Riverside and a non-public sub grantee for the use of HUD Community Planning and Development funds.
Sub Grantees
An entity or person receiving assistance from the County of Riverside of funds granted by HUD.
Supplement Agreement
An agreement between the County of Riverside and a public sub grantee for the use of HUD Community Planning and Development funds.
VA Veterans Administration
A federal agency, which coordinates and consolidates all federal program providing benefits to veterans and operates the VA Loan Guarantee and Mortgage Insurance program providing home mortgage guarantees authorized by the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act.
Very Low Income
Income that does not exceed 50 percent of area median income.
Appendix B
Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003
Appendix C
County of Riverside
Ethnic Concentrations Map
Appendix D
County of Riverside
Low/Moderate Income Areas Map
Appendix E
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
Public Evaluations
|COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT (CRA) |
|PUBLIC EVALUATIONS |
| | | | | |
|No. |Lending Institution |City |CRA Rating |Rating Date |
|1 |Canyon National Bank |Palm Springs |Outstanding |7/10/2000 |
|2 |De Anza National Bank |Riverside |Satisfactory |1/12/1998 |
|3 |Firstbank, N.A. |Palm Desert |Satisfactory |4/24/1997 |
|4 |Hemet Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. |Hemet |Satisfactory |12/21/1998 |
|5 |Inland Empire National Bank |Riverside |Outstanding |5/5/2003 |
|6 |Mission Oaks National Bank |Temecula |Satisfactory |1/7/2003 |
|7 |Palm Desert National Bank |Palm Desert |Satisfactory |12/7/1998 |
|8 |Premier Service Bank |Riverside |Satisfactory |1/1/2004 |
|9 |Provident Savings Bank |Riverside |Satisfactory |11/12/2002 |
|10 |Riverside National Bank |Riverside |Satisfactory |4/17/1996 |
|11 |Temecula Valley Bank, N.A. |Temecula |Satisfactory |1/19/1999 |
|12 |The Bank of Hemet |Hemet |Satisfactory |5/1/2001 |
|13 |Valley Bank |Moreno Valley |Satisfactory |1/1/2003 |
|14 |Valley Merchants Bank, N.A. |Hemet |Satisfactory |8/14/1997 |
-----------------------
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- county of las vegas jobs
- county of genesee mi
- county of bergen nj
- county of bucks property parcel numbers
- county of baltimore jobs
- county of sacramento job openings
- county of sacramento jobs website
- county of sacramento jobs
- eligibility specialist county of sacramento
- county of riverside office locations
- county of riverside hours
- county counsel riverside ca