COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
2003 FAIR HOUSING IMPEDIMENTS STUDY
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
i
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
ii
IV Recommendations
A. Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................................................39
B. Recommendations .......................................................................................................39
V Appendices
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Glossary of Terms
Fair Housing Audit Analysis, 2003
County of Riverside Ethnic Concentrations Map
County of Riverside Low/Moderate Income Areas
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Public Evaluations
Home Mortgage Disclosure Report (HMDA) Data
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
iii
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.”
A.
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
1
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, antidiscrimination 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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction, which presents the Study’s purpose and the methodologies utilized
in its preparation.
Community Profile, which describes the characteristics of the study area’s
population, as well as the area’s fair housing profile.
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.
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.
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
Appendices, consisting of the following documents and exhibits:
 Fair Housing Audit Analysis prepared by the Fair Housing Council of
Riverside County, Inc.
2





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
3







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.
4
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
5
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.
Figure 1. Riverside County Population Shares by Race/Ethnicity
Other
2.37%
Asian/Pacific Islander
3.8%
Hispanic
36.2%
Black/African American
6%
White
51%
American Indian/ Alaskan
Native
0.7%
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,
6
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 nonseasonally 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
7
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.
8
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 lowincome 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.
B.
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.
9
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.
10
Figure 2 - 1997 - 2002 Riverside County Complaint Category
7/1/97-6/30/98
40%
7/1/98-6/30/99
7/1/99-6/30/00
7/1/00-6/30/01
7/1/01-6/30/02
39%
35%
31%
30%
25%
20%
28%
27%
27%
25% 25%
22%
21%
20%
19%
18%
18%
17%
15%
13%
10%
9%
10%
16%
17%
15%
13%
8%
6%
5%
5%
3%
6%
5%
12%
11%
3%
4%
3%
2%2%
1%
0%
Race
Disability
Arbitrary
Nat'l Origin
Sex
Fam.
Status
Religion
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.
Figure 3: Riverside County Discrimination Complaints
Received from 1995 to 2002
Arbitrary
18%
Disability
19%
Race
26%
Family Status
21%
Sex
5%
Religion
2%
National Origin
9%
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
11
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.
12
TABLE II-1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY POPULATION AND ETHNIC/RACIAL DISTRIBUTION
Numeric
Percent
1990
2000
Change
Change
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White
(non-Hispanic)
754,140
64.4%
788,831
51.0%
34,691
4.6%
Hispanic
(all Races)
307,514
26.3%
559,575
36.2%
252,061
82%
Black or African
American
(non-Hispanic)
59,966
5.1%
92,403
6.0%
32,437
54.1%
Asian/Pacific
Islander*
38,349
3.3%
58,483
3.8%
20,134
52.5%
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
8,393
0.7%
10,135
0.7%
1,742
20.8%
Other
2,051
0.2%
2,425
0.2%
374
18.2%
Two or
More races**
NA
NA
33,535
2.17%
NA
NA
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%)
1,170,413 (100%)
1,545,387 (100%)
Total
Median Age
31.5
Source: 1990 & 2000 U.S. Census Bureau
13
33.1
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
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
67,446
62,801
82,700
13.3 %
12.4 %
16.3 %
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
100,840
56,058
41,953
19.9 %
11.1 %
8.3 %
$150,000 to $199,999
9,840
1.9 %
$200,000 or more
9,810
1.9 %
506,781
100.0 %
Total
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
Renters
Households by
income
Elderly 1&2
Households
Small
Related
2-4
Large
related
5 or
more
All other
HSE
Total
Renters
Total
Owners
Total
Households
< = 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
23,361
64,270
29,586
38,531
155,748
347,779
503,520
Total Households
Source: HUD CHAS Data based on 2000 Census
14
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
(Boat, RV, etc)
4,769 (1%)
6,450 (1%)
35%
483,847 (100%)
584,674 (100%)
21%
Total
Source: 1990 & 2000 U.S. Census Bureau
TABLE II-6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY COST OF HOUSING
Median Home Value
Median Rent
Median Household Income
1990
2000
Percent Change
$139,100
$146,500
5%
$572
$660
15 %
$33,081
$42,887
30 %
Source: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau
15
TABLE II-7
PERSONS BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND POVERTY LEVEL STATUS IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
% of Race Below
Poverty
Poverty Level Status
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
16
TABLE II-8
LANDLORD TENANT COMPLAINTS FILED/MEDIATED/REFERRED
IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND CDBG COOPERATING CITIES:
JULY 1995 – JUNE 2002
Complaints*
Filed
Referred to:
PHA/Agency/Attorney**
Cases
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
of Total
100 %
16 %
2%
Time Period
* 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.
17
TABLE II-9
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINTS BY CLASSIFICATION
FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY AND CDBG COOPERATING CITIES:
JULY 1995 – JUNE 2002
Time Period
FY 95-96
FY 96-97
FY 97-98
FY 98-99
FY 99-00
FY 00-01
FY 01-02
Total:
Percent of
Total:
Race
22
42
50
23
22
34
25
218
National
Origin
9
13
4
8
10
21
13
78
Religion
0
3
3
2
1
7
3
19
Sex
2
7
4
8
5
8
10
44
Family
Status
25
20
40
24
26
20
19
174
Disability
9
10
17
36
15
46
22
155
Rumford/
Unruh*
15
14
12
34
19
27
30
151
26%
9.5%
2%
5%
21%
18.5%
18%
Total
82
109
130
135
98
163
122
839
Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
* 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
Total
Complaints
Filed
Cases
Conciliated
FY 95-96
82
FY 96-97
Referred To:
Inconclusive
Pending*
Testing
Counseled
Educ
ation
Attorney
DFEH
HUD
7
2
13
0
7
8
5
2
38
109
3
4
3
0
10
70
3
6
10
FY 97-98
130
2
23
22
9
38
14
1
12
9
FY 98-99
135
6
4
20
4
54
13
0
0
34
FY 99-00
98
2
5
13
0
46
6
6
0
20
FY 00-01
163
4
5
5
0
17
93
2
0
37
FY 01-02
122
0
0
11
0
0
61
2
0
48
Total:
839
24
43
87
13
172
265
19
20
196
3%
5%
10 %
2%
21 %
32 %
2%
2%
23 %
Percent of Total:
Source: Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
* 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.
18
TABLE II-11
BASIS OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY HUD
FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY: JULY 1996 – JUNE 2002
Basis of
Complaints*
19961997
19971998
Familial
Status
11
7
Race
11
Disability
19981999
19992000
20002001
20012002
Total
Percent of Total
8
6
9
14
55
17%
15
20
22
18
13
99
30%
5
5
10
11
8
22
61
19%
National
Origin
3
4
3
3
5
6
24
7%
Marital Status
8
4
5
1
3
1
22
7%
Retaliation
1
3
2
2
2
4
14
4%
Sex
4
3
8
3
3
5
26
8%
Sexual
Orientation
1
1
0
1
2
0
5
1%
Religion
3
1
0
0
1
0
5
1%
Association
2
2
2
5
1
6
18
6%
Total:
49
45
58
54
52
71
329
100%
Source: Department of Fair Employment and Housing
* 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
19
TABLE II-13
CLOSING CATEGORIES OF CASES FILED FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY
1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 200020011997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Basis of complaint
Complainant not available
6
4
1
2
2
3
Complainant failed to cooperate
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
11
13
8
16
19
25
8
24
11
22
18
15
0
0
4
4
1
2
3
2
2
3
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
36
Source: Department of Fair Employment and Housing
44
40
41**
47**
Processing waived to another agency
Successful Conciliation
No Probable Cause
Withdrawal with Resolution
Withdrawal without Resolution
Pretrial Settlement
Transferred to Court: Case dismissed
Total
** Open Cases
20
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.
Page 21 of 5
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.
22
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
23
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
24
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 lowincome 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’
25
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 multifamily 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
26
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.
27
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.
3.
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.
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.
28
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:
29
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 lowincome 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
30
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
1.
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.
31
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
Partnerships (HOME) Programs
a.
Grant
(CDBG)/Home
Investment
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 NonDiscrimination 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,
32
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.
33
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
34
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.
35
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 stateapproved 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.
36
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.
37
TABLE III-1
LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY TYPE OF LOAN
Percent
Percent
Percent
Percent
Closed,
Type of Loan
Approved But
Originated
Denied
Withdrawn
or
Not Accepted
Incomplete
FHA/FSA/RHS/VA
73.1%
6.2%
8.9%
11.9%
Purchase Loans
Conventional Purchase
64.8
9.8%
13.2%
12.2%
Loans
Refinance Loans Owner
53.5%
9.4%
18.4%
18.8
Occupied
Home Improvement
33.8%
13.8%
39.2%
13.2%
Loans- Owner Occupied
All Owner-Occupied
56.3%
9.8%
19.9%
14.0%
Loans
Source: 2002 HMDA Data
TABLE III-2
LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY RACE
Loan Origination
Race of Applicant
Rate
Loan Denial Rate
American
58.2%
15.7%
Indian/Alaskan Native
Other*
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%
26.1%
Source: 2002 HMDA Data
* The loans listed under “Other” were withdrawn, not accepted, closed or incomplete.
38
TABLE III-3
LOAN ORIGINATION AND DENIAL RATES BY INCOME
Other*
Loan Origination
Loan Denial
Income of Applicant
Rate
Rate
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.
TABLE III-4
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF LOANS
Applicant
Characteristics
Debt/
Income
Ratio
Empl.
History
Credit
History
RACE
American
12.9%
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
17.4%
Islander
14.9%
Black
18.7%
Hispanic
16.2%
White
18.1%
Other
Joint
17.8%
(White/Other Race)
14.3%
Race Not Available
INCOME
Less than 50%
29.6%
of Median
22.9%
50-79% of Median
18.0%
80-99% of Median
15.7%
100-119% of Median
120% or
11.4%
More of Median
Income Not
7.7%
Available
Source: 2002 HMDA Data
Collateral
Insuff. Cash/
Unverifiable
Info.
Credit Appl.
Incomplete
/Mortgage
Insurance
Denied
Other
PERCENTAGE
0.7%
33.4%
18.2%
6.3%
7.3%
21.2%
2.1%
30.4%
11.5%
9.5%
8.1%
21.0%
1.2%
2.0%
36.7%
32.6%
11.6%
11.3%
8.2%
7.6%
6.3%
6.0%
21.1%
18.0%
1.5%
31.6%
15.4%
6.6%
7.9%
20.7%
1.5%
35.6%
10.7%
6.0%
9.1%
20.6%
1.9%
36.2%
14.4%
5.4%
6.0%
18.4%
1.4%
40.5%
13.4%
4.2%
8.4%
17.9%
PERCENTAGE
2.6%
34.1%
10.3%
5.6%
3.8%
13.9%
1.6%
1.7%
1.4%
37.0%
38.1%
37.9%
11.8%
12.2%
13.1%
6.1%
6.0%
5.3%
6.0%
6.6%
8.4%
15.0%
16.2%
18.3%
1.3%
36.3%
13.9%
6.3%
8.4%
22.2%
2.0%
32.9%
20.8%
7.0%
10.8%
18.9%
39
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.
A.
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.
B.
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.
40
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.
41
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.
42
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.
43
Appendix A
Glossary of terms
44
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 lowincome 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Lending Institution
Canyon National Bank
De Anza National Bank
Firstbank, N.A.
Hemet Federal Savings and Loan Assoc.
Inland Empire National Bank
Mission Oaks National Bank
Palm Desert National Bank
Premier Service Bank
Provident Savings Bank
Riverside National Bank
Temecula Valley Bank, N.A.
The Bank of Hemet
Valley Bank
Valley Merchants Bank, N.A.
City
Palm Springs
Riverside
Palm Desert
Hemet
Riverside
Temecula
Palm Desert
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Temecula
Hemet
Moreno Valley
Hemet
Page 1 of 1
CRA Rating
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Outstanding
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Rating Date
7/10/2000
1/12/1998
4/24/1997
12/21/1998
5/5/2003
1/7/2003
12/7/1998
1/1/2004
11/12/2002
4/17/1996
1/19/1999
5/1/2001
1/1/2003
8/14/1997