HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-2016 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Section VBBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 1
SECTION V.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
This appendix contains the City of Temecula’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).
This AI was completed as part of the city’s 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan.
This section contains:
Maps examining racial, ethnic and income concentrations in Temecula;
The findings from a fair housing survey that was conducted for this analysis;
A review of the city’s land use policies and zoning codes for barriers to fair housing choice;
An analysis of home mortgage lending data;
An analysis of fair housing complaints and legal cases; and
An identification of fair housing barriers and recommended fair housing action plan.
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. The AI is a U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) mandated review of impediments to fair housing choice in the
public and private sector. The AI is required for the City of Temecula to receive federal housing and
community development block grant funding.1
The AI involves:
A review of a city’s laws, regulations and administrative policies, procedures and practices;
An assessment of how those laws, policies and practices affect the location, availability and
accessibility of housing; and
An assessment of public and private sector conditions affecting fair housing choice.
According to HUD, impediments to fair housing choice are:
Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial
status or national origin that restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices.
Any actions, omissions or decisions that have the effect of restricting housing choices or the
availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or
national origin.
1 The city is also required to submit a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development and an annual
performance report to receive funding each year.
PAGE 2, S ECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Although the AI itself is not directly approved or denied by HUD, its submission is a required
component of a city’s or state’s Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
(Consolidated Plan) performance reporting. HUD desires that AI’s:
Serve as the substantive, logical basis for fair housing planning;
Provide essential and detailed information to policy makers, administrative staff, housing
providers, lenders and fair housing advocates; and
Assist in building public support for fair housing efforts both within a city’s boundaries
and beyond.
Federal Fair Housing Act. The Federal Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 and amended in 1988,
prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender/sex,
familial status and disability. The Fair Housing Act covers most types of housing including rental
housing, home sales, mortgage and home improvement lending and land use and zoning. Excluded
from the Act are owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single family housing units
sold or rented without the use of a real estate agent or broker, housing operated by organizations and
private clubs that limit occupancy to members and housing for older persons.2
HUD has the primary authority for enforcing the Federal Fair Housing Act. HUD investigates the
complaints it receives and determines if there is a “reasonable cause” to believe that discrimination
occurred. If reasonable cause is established, HUD brings the complaint before an Administrative Law
Judge. Parties to the action can also elect to have the trial held in a federal court (in which case the
Department of Justice brings the claim on behalf of the plaintiff).3
State of California Fair Housing Laws. In addition to the Federal Fair Housing Act, there are
several California state laws that apply to Fair Housing.
Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959. This act requires equal access to the accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges or services of all business establishments. It provides for the right to be free from
discrimination in public accommodations regardless of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry or national
origin. It was later amended to include all disabilities.4
Fair Employment and Housing Act of 1963. This is the primary state law which prohibits
discrimination in the sale, rental, lease negotiation or financing of housing based on race, color
national origin, sex, marital status, national origin and ancestry.5
Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976: This act provides that all persons within California have the right to
be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or
property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sexual
orientation, sex, age, disability or position in a labor dispute. The Act prohibits violence or threat of
2 “How Much Do We Know? Public Awareness of the Nation’s Fair Housing Laws”, The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Research, April 2002.
3 Ibid.
4 The Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Available online at
http://www.fairhousing.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=76&Itemid=68
5 I bid.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 3
same in rental housing situations, including houses, apartments, hotel, boarding housing and
condominiums.6
California Fair Housing Act of 1992: This act brings the Fair Housing Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA) into conformity with the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. Added to
current protected groups are "mental and physical disability" and "familial status." It requires that
housing providers allow disabled persons to modify their premises and make reasonable
accommodations to meet their needs, increases the time limit for the filing of discrimination
complaints from 60 days to one year, provides minimum accessibility standards for all newly-
constructed multifamily housing, bars mobile home parks from "adults only" residency unless they
comply with criteria for the senior housing exemption as defined under Housing for Older Persons,
and it provides representation of the victim by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing if
the issue is removed to a court of law from the administrative process after determination that the law
has been violated.7
Protected Class Concentrations
A full demographic profile of Temecula is provided in Section I of the Consolidated Plan. This
section of the AI focuses on concentrations of protected classes in Temecula.
Racial concentrations. In 2010, the largest racial group in Temecula was white (71%), followed
by Asian (at a much lower 10%). The slight majority of Temecula residents (57%) were non-
Hispanic white and approximately one-quarter were of Hispanic origin. Figure V-1 shows the racial
and ethnic distribution of Temecula in 2000 and 2010.
Figure V-1.
Population
by Race and
Ethnicity, City
of Temecula,
2000 and 2010
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
Census and 2010 Census.
The population proportion of all minority groups increased in between 2000 and 2010, while the
non-Hispanic white population proportion dropped from 69 percent to 57 percent. Despite this
increase in diversity, Temecula still has a smaller minority population than Riverside County as a
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
Total population 57,716 100 100,097 100
Race
American Indian and Alaska Native 497 0.9% 1,079 1.1%
Asian 2,728 4.7% 9,765 9.8%
Black or African American 1,974 3.4% 4,132 4.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 174 0.3% 368 0.4%
White 45,555 78.9% 70,880 70.8%
Some Other Race 4,276 7.4% 7,928 7.9%
Two or More Races 2,512 4.4% 5,945 5.9%
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino 10,974 19.0% 24,727 24.7%
Non-Hispanic White 40,007 69.3% 57,246 57.2%
Number Percent Number Percent
20102000
PAGE 4, S ECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
whole. In Riverside County, the Hispanic population (45%) outnumbers the non-Hispanic white
population (40%).
One of the key components of a demographic analysis is an examination of the concentration of racial
and ethnic minorities within a jurisdiction to detect evidence of segregation. In some cases, minority
concentrations are a reflection of preferences—e.g., minorities may choose to live near family and
friends of the same race/ethnicities or where they have access to grocery stores or restaurants that cater
to them. In other cases, minority populations are intentionally steered away or discouraged from
living in certain areas. Housing prices can also heavily influence where minorities live, to the extent
that there are economic disparities among persons of different races and ethnicities.
According to HUD, an area of racial and ethnic concentration (also called a “minority impacted
area”) is defined as where the percentage of persons in a particular race or ethnic group is at least 20
percentage points higher than the percentage of persons in the category for the city as a whole.
Using the above definition of concentration, block groups in Temecula have a concentration if the
following exists:
A non-Hispanic white population proportion of 77 percent and more;
A Hispanic population proportion of 45 percent and more;
An Asian population proportion of 30 percent and more; and
A Black or African American population proportion of 24 percent and more.
Figure V-2 shows the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents within each block group in the city.
There are no block groups within city boundaries that are 77 percent or more non-Hispanic white;
however one block group immediately east of Temecula is non-Hispanic white-concentrated.
Figure V-2.
Percent of Non-Hispanic
White Population by
Block Group, City of
Temecula, 2010
Source:
2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 5
Figure V-3 shows the ratio of Hispanics to total population by block group in the city. As the map
demonstrates, there no block groups in the city with Hispanic concentrations.
Figure V-3.
Percent of Hispanic/Latino
Population by Block Group,
City of Temecula, 2010
Source:
2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
Figure V-4 shows the proportion of Asian residents by block group in the city. There is one block
group in the southwestern portion of the city with a concentration of Asian residents.
Figure V-4.
Percent of Asian Population
by Block Group, City of
Temecula, 2010
Source:
2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
PAGE 6, S ECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure V-5 shows the proportion of African Americans by block group in the city. There are no block
groups with concentrations of African Americans.
Figure V-5.
Percent of Population that
is African American, City
of Temecula, 2010
Source:
2010 Census and BBC Research & Consulting.
Persons with disabilities. The 2000 Census reported that 13 percent of Temecula residents had a
disability. By 2010, the percent of residents with a disability had dropped to 10 percent. The
prevalence of disability decreased in each age cohort between 2000 and 2010—most dramatically in
residents aged 18-34 (12% in 2000 to 5% in 2010).
Figure V-6.
Disability by Age Cohort, City of
Temecula, 2010
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau 2010 American Community Survey.
The likelihood of disability increases with age and thus the distribution of disabilities is typically a
function of a city’s age profile. Of the 9,374 persons with disabilities in Temecula, 30 percent were
seniors, up from 26 percent in 2000.
Figure V-7 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities in Temecula by block group as of
2000, the latest date of availability. A block group is concentrated when 33 percent of residents in a
block group have a disability (based on the 2000 Census disability proportion for the city). There are
no block groups with concentrations of persons with disabilities. However, the map indicates that
block groups in the center of Temecula have a higher proportion of persons with disabilities.
Age Cohort
Under 5 years 161 2% 2%
5 to 17 years 1,609 7% 17%
18 to 34 years 1,089 5% 12%
35 to 64 years 3,745 10% 40%
65 to 74 years 1,256 36% 13%
75 years and over 1,514 47% 16%
Total 9,374 9% 100%
Percent
with
Disabilities
Percent
of Age
GroupEstimate
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 7
Figure V-7.
Percent of Population
with Disabilities, City of
Temecula, 2000
Source:
U.S. Census 2000 and BBC Research
& Consulting.
The 2010 ACS estimates the presence of persons with disabilities in the workforce. Of persons with
disabilities who are working age (18 to 64), about half were not in the labor force, 37 percent were
employed and 12 percent were unemployed.
Household size. The average household size (3.15) in Temecula did not change between 2000 and
2010. As is typical, the average household size of renters in Temecula is slightly smaller (3.07) than
the average household size of owners (3.18).
Large households, defined by the Census as having five or more persons in a household, made up 18
percent of the total occupied households in 2010. The proportion of large households has not
changed substantially since 2000, but the share of renter occupied households with five or more
persons increased from14 percent to 19 percent.
Large households can have unique housing needs because of the limited housing stock to serve
them—especially rental housing stock—as well as lack of support and understanding of familial status
protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act.
The map in Figure V-8 examines the location of large households within the city. Concentrated block
groups are those in which large households make up more than 38 percent of households. Although
there are no concentrated block groups in Temecula, block groups on the outskirts of the city tend to
have higher percentages of large households.
PAGE 8, S ECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure V-8.
Percentage of Large
Households by Block
Group, City of
Temecula, 2010
Source:
2009 Claritas and BBC Research
& Consulting.
Familial status. In 2010, half of all households in Temecula were families with children. Of these
15,806 households with children, 77 percent were husband-wife families and 23 percent were single
parent households. Figure V-9 displays the city’s 2010 household composition.
Figure V-9.
Household Composition,
City of Temecula, 2010
Note:
Due to rounding, percentages may not appear to
aggregate correctly.
Source:
2010 Census.
Single parent households—especially those with single mothers—have some of the highest rates of
poverty in most communities. As such, they have needs for social services (child care, transportation)
and affordable housing. Familial status is also a protected class under fair housing law and, in many
communities, one of the most common reasons for fair housing complaints. Single parent households
are therefore vulnerable to fair housing discrimination and often have fewer choices in the housing
market because of their lower income levels.
Approximately 8 percent of all households in Temecula are female-headed households with children.
Based on the same definition of concentration as in the ethnicity maps, Figure V-10 shows that there
are no concentrations of female-headed households with children in the city.
Total households 31,781 100%
Nonfamily households 5,955 19%
Family households 25,826 81%
Husband-wife families 20,483 64%
With children 12,141 38%
Without children 8,342 26%
Female householder, no husband present 3,763 12%
With children 2,632 8%
Without children 1,131 4%
Male householder, no wife present 1,580 5%
With children 1,033 3%
Without children 547 2%
Number Percent
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 9
Figure V-10.
Percentage of Female-
Headed Households with
Children by Block Group,
City of Temecula, 2010
Source:
2009 Claritas and BBC Research & Consulting.
Low Income and poverty. Figure V-11 shows the proportion of very low income households
(earning less than $25,000) by block group. Approximately 19 percent of all households in Temecula
earn less than $25,000, so block groups in which more than 39 percent of households are low income
are considered to have low income concentrations.
Low income households tend to be concentrated immediately west of I-15. Low income households
are also concentrated just outside the western boundary of Temecula. The two block groups just east
of I-15 with 19 to 39 percent of low income households, respectively, also had high percentages of
female-headed households with children.
Figure V-11.
Percent of Low Income
Households, City of
Temecula, 2009
Source:
2009 Claritas and BBC Research
& Consulting.
PAGE 10, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
In 2000, 7 percent of Temecula’s population, or 3,864 people, were living below the poverty level.
This was substantially lower than the rest of Riverside County, the state of California and the U.S. as
a whole. Between 2000 and 2010 the poverty rate in Temecula doubled to 14 percent (14,020
people). Despite this large increase, the poverty level in Temecula remained below that of Riverside
County, California and the U.S., as shown in Figure V-12.
Figure V-12.
Poverty Rate, City of
Temecula, 2000 and 2010
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau 2000 Census and 2010 American
Community Survey.
Public Input
During the development of the Consolidated Plan and AI, residents and stakeholders were consulted
about fair housing barriers and housing and community development needs. A complete discussion of
public input can be found in Section II of the Consolidated Plan. This portion of the AI summarizes
the findings and responses relevant to fair housing choice in Temecula.
Online and paper surveys of residents and stakeholders were available from November 16, 2011
through January 5, 2012. The survey was advertised for over a month on the City of Temecula
website and extended into early January 2012 in order to gather additional input from the
community.
Potential barriers to fair housing. Residents and stakeholders rated the relative seriousness of
potential barriers to fair housing in Temecula on a scale from zero to nine, where a rating of nine
indicates that the factor is a serious barrier. Due to their expertise, stakeholders evaluated a more
comprehensive list of barriers.
As shown in Figure V-13, on average, most residents have not experienced barriers to fair housing
choice in Temecula. Income, concentrations of affordable housing in certain areas and a lack of
affordable housing to purchase were the top three barriers, and these were a serious problem for 10 to
17 percent of residents.
2010
2000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%30%
6.7%
14.2%
14.0%
16.3%
Temecula
Riverside
County
100%
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 11
Figure V-13.
Potential Fair Housing Barriers — Residents
Note: n=148.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey.
Stakeholders evaluated a comprehensive series of potential barriers to fair housing including
economic, demographic and housing factors; land use, zoning and housing policies; capacity issues;
lending activities; and real estate activities. The most serious barriers in each category are below.
Income levels of minority and female-headed households had the highest average rating among
economic, demographic and housing factors.
Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing and neighborhood objections to
group homes for persons with disabilities were the most serious barriers associated with land use,
zoning and housing policies.
Among capacity issues, a lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing was the most
serious potential barrier, followed by a lack of fair housing knowledge on the part of small
landlords.
Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer was considered a
serious barrier by more than 40 percent of stakeholders.
Among real estate activities, steering, denying the availability of housing and insurance agency
discrimination had the highest average ratings.
Housing provider refused to make reasonable
accommodations for my disability
Sellers of homes refused to
show me their home
I can’t find a real estate professional of the
race, ethnicity, disability or gender I prefer
My lender did not give me an
appraisal of my home or property
I did not get information about
private mortgage insurance
Real estate agents only showed me housing
I could afford in certain neighborhoods
My lender told me to use a specific appraisal
or hazard insurance company
I was given a subprime loan
(higher interest rate than normal)
I have poor credit
Lack of knowledge among
appraisers regarding fair housing
Lack of affordable housing to rent
Restrictive covenants by builders,
developers or homeowners associations
Lack of affordable
housing to purchase
Concentrations of affordable
housing in certain areas
My income level
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A Serious
Problem
Not a
Problem
Avg. Rating
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.2
PAGE 12, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure V-14 identifies the top barriers (average rating of 5.9 or higher) to fair housing as rated by
stakeholders. The most serious barriers across all categories include lending and real estate activities as
well as NIMBYism.
Figure V-14.
Most Serious Barriers to Fair Housing Choice — Stakeholders
Note: n=21.
Source: BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Stakeholder Survey.
Affordability, services and community climate. Residents responded to a series of questions
about affordable housing, public transit and community climate in Temecula.
About one in 10 residents who responded to the survey had been unable to find affordable
housing in Temecula. The types of housing sought included single family homes, condos and
apartments.
About one in five residents who responded to the survey have tried to access public transit in
Temecula and were unable to. Lack of access pertained to a number of locations within
Temecula as well as limited hours of transit operation.
The vast majority of residents responding to the survey agree with the statement, “I feel that
people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.” Residents who do not feel welcome in
Temecula explained that they were single parents, gay, of mixed race or not of the Christian
faith and these factors made them feel unwelcome.
Resident experience with housing discrimination. Residents also responded to several
questions regarding fair housing and their past experience with housing discrimination, if any. Only
three percent of residents responding to the survey believe they have been discriminated against in
finding housing and five percent were not sure.
Barrier
6.6 Lenders not disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer
6.6 Neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing
6.3 Income levels of minority and female-headed households
6.2 Lenders steering customers to use a specific appraisal or hazard insurance company
6.1 Lenders targeting subprime, high risk borrowers
6.1 Real estate agents directing clients to rental or sale of housing only in certain neighborhoods
5.9 Lack of knowledge among residents regarding fair housing
5.9 Lenders not disclosing full appraisal reports to borrowers
5.9 Lenders offering prime customers subprime rates
5.9 Poor credit histories of minority borrowers
5.9 Housing providers falsely denying that housing is available
5.9 Insurance agency discrimination in decision to insure certain parties
Average
Rating
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 13
Those residents who believe they have experienced discrimination in housing offered the following
descriptions of their experience:
“I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White community would want
me to live in.”
“Realtor steering us away from certain homes.”
“Single parent.”
“We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical and did
not present our offer to the seller.”
In response to their experience with housing discrimination, only one individual reported
filing a complaint with the ACLU. One wrote a letter to the California Department of Real
Estate (DRE) to complain about the real estate agent’s steering practices.
All residents were asked if they knew who to contact in the case that they experienced housing
discrimination. As shown in Figure V-15, only one in 10 respondents stated that they knew who to
contact to report housing discrimination.
Figure V-15.
If you ever felt you were
discriminated against and wanted to
report it, do you know who you
would contact?
Note:
n=132.
Source:
BBC Research & Consulting 2011 Temecula Resident Survey.
Those respondents who knew the organization to contact to report housing discrimination would
contact Fair Housing of Riverside County, the Fair Housing hotline, HUD, CA DRE, a lawyer or
search the internet.
Fair housing resources. With regard to the availability and accessibility of fair housing resources
in Temecula, half of stakeholders did not think sufficient information was available. Stakeholders
made the following comments about the types of information, resources and training that would be
helpful to them:
“Credit counseling.”
“I have never seen any leaflets, flyers, or brochures concerning Fair Housing Laws available to the
general public in Temecula. If they exist, where are they hidden?”
“Advertise workshops on how to obtain housing in the area.”
“A more proactive approach in informing and educating the realtor community of availability of
the information and where to send their clientele.”
Stakeholders suggested a variety of methods to inform residents about fair housing issues. These
included emails and websites, city and or county public meetings, industry publications, government
publications, internal memos or communications and providing speakers to organizations.
Yes (11%)
No (59%)
Don’t know (30%)
PAGE 14, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Summary of public input findings. The public outreach conducted for the Consolidated Plan
and AI reveal several important findings related to fair housing choice in Temecula:
One in 10 residents had tried to find affordable housing in Temecula without success, and one in
five had experienced difficulty trying to access public transit.
Residents report experiencing few barriers to fair housing choice. Stakeholders rated lenders not
disclosing the determination made by the private mortgage insurer; neighborhood objections to
affordable or assisted housing and the income levels of minority and female-headed households
to be the most serious barriers to fair housing choice in Temecula.
The majority of residents feel that people like them are welcome in Temecula. Those who did
not feel welcome believe this results from their being single parents, mixed-race families or gay.
Few (3%) residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination. Steering by real
estate agents was the type of discrimination described. Only 10 percent of residents know who to
contact to report housing discrimination.
Housing and Land Use Policy Review
This section discusses the housing and land use policies that may affect fair housing in the City
of Temecula.
Housing profile. A detailed profile of the city’s housing market is provided in the Community
Profile and Housing Market Analysis section of the Consolidated Plan (Section I). In sum, the
analysis found:
The majority of the city’s housing stock is new and in good condition—over 90 percent was built
after 1980. Few residents live in substandard units and few reported living in overcrowded units.
Between 2000 and 2010 median rent and median home value in Temecula increased faster than
resident incomes. Thus, both renters and homeowners lost purchasing power during the past
decade.
Temecula’s median rent in 2010 was relatively high at $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city’s
renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford median rent without being cost burdened.
Forty-three percent of Temecula residents (33% of renters) can afford the city’s 2010 median
home value of $289,800.
There is a substantial shortage of rental units affordable to renter households earning less than
$35,000. In 2010, 4,292 renter households in Temecula—45 percent of all renter households—
earned less than $35,000. However, there are only 1,115 affordable units—11 percent of all
rental units.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 15
Zoning codes, planning and zoning commission, planning fees OR Development
regulations review. BBC reviewed the City of Temecula’s zoning regulations, comprehensive plan
and planning fees to assess potential fair housing concerns or opportunities resulting from the
development process. This review identified two possible fair housing concerns:
Neither household nor family is defined in the city’s zoning code, which may exclude unrelated
persons with disabilities from living together.
Congregate care and residential care facilities for seven or more are only addressed for the
elderly, which may exclude persons with disabilities from similar living arrangements.
To evaluate potential fair housing concerns within the city’s zoning code, BBC utilized a “Review of
Public Policies and Practices (Zoning and Planning Codes)” form recently circulated by the Los
Angeles fair housing office of HUD. This section poses the questions from this checklist, along with
responses about the city’s code.
Does the Code definition of “family” have the effect of discriminating against unrelated individuals with
disabilities who reside together in a congregate or group living arrangement? The city’s code does not
define the term “family,” nor does it explicitly state that the occupants of a single family dwelling
unit must be related. It does specify the occupants of a single family unit as “one household,” which
is not defined. The code allows residential care facilities and facilities for the mentally disordered,
disabled, or dependent or neglected children in all residential zones provided there are six or fewer
occupants.
Is the Code definition of “disability” the same as the Fair Housing Act? Yes. The Code defines a “disabled
person” or “person with a disability” as an “individual who has a physical or mental impairment that
limits one or more of that person’s major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such
impairment; or anyone who has a record of having such an impairment. Such an impairment shall
not include an individual’s current, illegal use of a controlled substance.”
Does the zoning ordinance restrict housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities and
mischaracterize such housing as a “boarding or rooming house” or “hotel”? No. Rooming and boarding
houses, although not specifically defined in the code, are commercial and are distinct from group
homes and residential care facilities, which are defined and zoned residential.
Does the zoning ordinance deny housing opportunities for disability individuals with on site housing
supporting services? No. Residential care facilities, which are permitted by right in all residential zones
if they have six or fewer occupants, include on site support services by definition.
Does the jurisdiction policy allow any number of unrelated persons to reside together, but restrict such
occupancy, if the residents are disabled? The city does not specify the number of related or unrelated
persons in one household. However, group homes or residential care facilities must have six or fewer
people in order to be permitted in any residential zone. Congregate care for the elderly and residential
care facilities for the elderly with seven or more are permitted in medium and high density residential
zones and conditionally permitted in all other residential zones.
PAGE 16, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not specifically
for the elderly are not addressed in residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude congregate
care and residential care for seven or more occupants for those with disabilities.
Does the jurisdiction policy not allow disabled persons to make reasonable modifications or provide
reasonable accommodation for disabled people who live in municipal-supplied or managed residential
housing? No.
Does the jurisdiction require a public hearing to obtain public input for specific exceptions to zoning and
land-use rules for disabled applicants and is the hearing only for disabled applicants rather than for all
applicants? No. Public hearings are required to obtain a conditional use permit, variance or
amendment to development code, but the hearing is not specific to persons with disabilities.
Does the zoning ordinance address mixed uses? How are the residential land uses discussed? What standards
apply? Yes. Village Centers, designated by the general plan or zoned with the application of the village
center overlay zoning district, are intended to create a mixture of land uses with pedestrian
orientation with plazas, open spaces and mass transit opportunities.
Residential design considerations include allowing for residential density increases for those projects
that offer mixed uses with a diversity of housing opportunities including the provision of affordable
housing; integrating mixed uses into a single structure with retail on the lower level, office and
residential on upper levels; and considering higher residential densities and intensities that will
support mass transit options.
Does the zoning ordinance describe any areas in this jurisdiction as exclusive? No.
Are there exclusions or discussions of limiting housing to any of the following groups: race, color, sex,
religion, age, disability, marital status or familial status and/or creed of national origin? No.
Are there any restrictions for Senior Housing in the zoning ordinance? If yes, do the restrictions comply with
Federal law on housing for older persons (i.e., solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or at least
one person 55 years of age and has significant facilities or services to meet the physical or social needs of
older people)? There are no restrictions on senior housing, per se.
The definition of senior citizen housing complexes (not including state-licensed rest homes, group
homes, convalescent hospitals, etc.) is consistent with federal law. Senior citizen housing complexes,
or congregate care for the elderly, are permitted by right in low density, low medium density,
medium density and high density residential zones. Other multifamily housing is only permitted by
right in medium and high density residential zones.
Residential care facilities for the elderly are defined as “housing arrangements chosen voluntarily by
persons 60 years of age or over where varying levels and intensities of care and supervision, protective
supervision, personal care, or health-related services are provided.” Residential care facilities for the
elderly with six or fewer occupants are permitted in all residential zones. Those with seven or more
are permitted in medium and high density residential zones and require a CUP in all others.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 17
Special development standards allowing higher maximum densities apply to senior housing.
Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various density
incentives and development standard concessions as outlined in section 17.10.020 of the code.
Does the zoning ordinance contain any special provisions for making housing accessible to persons with
disabilities? Yes. Section 17.03.065 specifically addresses reasonable accommodations.
Does the zoning ordinance establish occupancy standards or maximum occupancy limits? Yes. Although
family households are not subject to maximum occupancy limits, group homes are limited to six or
fewer persons. (Group homes for the elderly with more than six are required to obtain a conditional
use permit).
Does the zoning ordinance include a discussion of fair housing? Yes. “Fair Housing Laws,” meaning the
Federal Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment
Housing Act, are referenced in section 17.03.065 of the code in the context of reasonable
accommodations.
Describe the minimum standards and amenities required by the ordinance for a multiple family project
with respect to handicap parking. Section 17.24.040-D in the code discusses the minimum number of
disabled parking spaces required for both non-residential and multifamily parking. Residential uses
are required to provide one parking space designated for the disabled for each dwelling unit that is
designated for the disabled. Ultimate authority for disabled parking requirements is deferred to the
state of California and the American Disabilities Act.
Does the zoning code distinguish senior citizen housing from other single family residential and multifamily
residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? In the standard zoning districts
(residential, commercial/office/industrial and public/institutional) senior housing is not distinguished
from other residential uses by the application of a CUP. However, there are two overlay districts
(PDO-7 and PDO-10) in which multifamily housing is permitted by right, but congregate care for
the elderly requires a CUP.
Does the zoning code distinguish handicapped housing from other single family residential and multifamily
residential uses by the application of a conditional use permit (cup)? Although handicapped housing is
not distinguished by the application of a CUP, it is distinguished by omission. In residential districts,
congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants is only addressed as specific to the
elderly. This effectively excludes congregate care and residential care for seven or more occupants for
those with disabilities. The same is true for commercial/office/industrial zoning districts and most
overlay districts.
How are “special group residential housing” defined in the jurisdiction zoning code? The code defines a
group home as any residential care facility for six or fewer persons which is licensed by the state.
Other special group housing definitions included in the code are below.
Congregate care: apartment housing, usually for senior citizens, or for the disabled in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 50062.5, which is arranged in a group setting
that includes independent living and sleeping accommodations in conjunction with shared
dining and recreational facilities. (Congregate care facilities for the elderly are permitted in L-2,
LM, MH and H residential zones).
PAGE 18, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Although the code definition of congregate care is not specific to the elderly, the only residential
use type included in the zoning code is “Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly.”
This may have the effect of excluding congregate care facilities for persons with disabilities.
Convalescent facility: a state-licensed facility which provides long-term nursing, dietary and
other medical services except surgery or primary treatments customarily provided in a hospital,
to convalescents or invalids. (Permitted in M and H residential zones).
Residential care facility: means any family home, group care facility, or similar facility
determined by the Director of Social Services, established for 24-hour non-medical care of
persons in need of personal services, supervision or assistance. (Permitted in all residential zones
with six or fewer people. Residential care facilities with more than six occupants are not listed as
a residential use in the code).
Residential care facility for the elderly: a housing arrangement chosen voluntarily by persons
60 years of age or over, or their authorized representative, where varying levels and intensities of
care and supervision, protective supervision, personal care, or health-related services are
provided, based upon their varying needs, as determined in order to be admitted and to remain
in the facility. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally
permitted in all residential zones with seven to 12 people).
Facilities for the mentally disordered, disabled, or dependent or neglected children: not
defined. (Permitted in all residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all
residential zones with seven to 12 people).
Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility: not defined. (Permitted in all
residential zones with six or fewer people; conditionally permitted in all residential zones with
seven or more people).
Emergency shelter: a facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental
services for the homeless. Supplemental services may include food, counseling and access to other
social programs. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other residential zones).
Transitional Housing: not defined. (Permitted in M and H; conditionally permitted in all other
residential zones).
Community care facility: any facility, place or building which is maintained and operated to
provide non-medical residential care, day treatment, adult day care or foster family agency
services for children, adults, or children and adults, including, but not limited to, the physically
disabled, mentally impaired, incompetent persons, and abused or neglected children, and
includes residential facilities, adult day care facilities, day treatment facilities, foster family homes,
small family homes, social rehabilitation facilities, community treatment facilities, and social day
care facilities. (Not included in residential uses listed in the code).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 19
Senior citizen housing complexes: licensed housing for persons 62 years of age or older, or
licensed housing for persons 55 years of age or older, including such housing facilities as
retirement villas, apartments, condominiums, etc.; but not including state-licensed rest homes,
group homes, convalescent hospitals, etc., which are regulated by other provisions of this
development code. (These are considered the same as congregate care for the elderly in
residential uses included in the code).
Does the jurisdiction’s planning and building codes presently make specific reference to the accessibility
requirements contained in the 1988 amendment to the Fair Housing Act? The specific amendment is not
mentioned, but the discussion of fair housing laws upholds the Federal Housing Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment Housing Act “as these statutes now exist or
may be amended from time to time.” Is there any provision for monitoring compliance? Section
17.03.100 of the development code addresses enforcement for all violations of the zoning code.
Public Housing Authority policies. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR)
serves as the housing authority for the City of Temecula, as well as Riverside County. Their mission
is to “provide affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities to low and moderate income
families including elderly and handicapped persons, while supporting programs to foster economic
self-sufficiency.” The policies and procedures of the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
were reviewed as part of the FY2012-2016 AI.
Section 8 voucher program. The HACR currently has funding to serve 8,550 families in Riverside
County through the federal Section 8 voucher program. Approximately two percent, or 136 families,
of those being served in Riverside County live in Temecula. The housing authority reports that it has
approximately 50,000 families on the waiting list. The waiting list is currently closed, except to those
who are 75 years or older or are veterans.
According to the HACR, it is relatively easy for voucher holders to find a unit that accepts Section 8
vouchers, most likely due to the current housing market conditions in Riverside County (large supply
of housing stock and low rents). According to the 2009 Riverside County AI, owners are more likely
to accept Section 8 vouchers now than in 2003; however, some landlords who reduce their rent to
gain occupancy may be anticipating a foreclosure and in several months families may be forced to
relocate and forfeit their security deposits. The resulting challenge for the housing authority is
screening the properties to determine their legitimacy.
Once a family is awarded a voucher, the HACR encourages certificate holders to locate in
nontraditional areas by showing them neighborhood maps with poverty concentrations and
discussing the benefits of living in low poverty areas. However, families tend to select properties near
their support network, which is often in a low income area.
Affordable units. The housing authority also owns and manages 469 rental units scattered
throughout Riverside County. None of these properties are located in Temecula. Seven percent of the
units in Riverside County are accessible to persons with physical disabilities. The waiting list for
public housing is open, but currently has 78,000 families.
PAGE 20, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Client demographics. There are 136 families in Temecula receiving housing assistance in the form of
Section 8 vouchers. There are another 1,412 families on the waiting list for housing services. Of those
currently holding vouchers, 26 percent are Hispanic and 14 percent are African American. Eighty-
four percent are elderly or disabled and 14 percent are families with children. Figure V-16 compares
the characteristics of families on the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers in Temecula with the waiting
list in Riverside County as a whole.
Figure V-16.
HACR Section 8 Waiting
List, City of Temecula
Source:
Housing Authority of the County of Riverside.
Affordable Development
Temecula’s Redevelopment Agency has financed twelve affordable housing projects within the city,
creating 574 multi-family rental units to serve low and moderate income families within the City of
Temecula. The redevelopment agency focuses on improving blighted conditions, which are often
found in under-resourced areas. As a result, most affordable development projects are concentrated in
the low income portions of the city.
Figure V-14.
Affordable Housing
and Low Income
Concentration,
City of Temecula,
2010
Source:
2009 Claritas, City of Temecula and
BBC Research & Consulting.
Waiting list total 1,412 53,688
Extremely low income <=30% AMI 69% 77%
Elderly families 15% 7%
Families with Disabilities 25% 21%
Families with children 60% 64%
Temecula
Riverside
County
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 21
The following figure summarizes the city’s inventory of affordable housing developments and the
number of Section 8 vouchers currently being used in the City of Temecula. As of January, 2012,
there are 710 families receiving some form of rental housing assistance in Temecula.
Figure V-17.
Affordable Housing and Section 8
Vouchers, City of Temecula, 2012
Source:
Housing Authority of Riverside County and BBC Research & Consulting.
Fair Lending Analysis
This section contains an analysis of mortgage loan and community reinvestment data. Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) ratings and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data are commonly
used in AI’s to examine fair lending practices within a jurisdiction.
The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)8 is responsible to facilitate public
access to data that depository institutions must disclose under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of
1975 (HMDA) and the aggregation of annual HMDA data, by census tract, for each metropolitan
statistical area (MSA).
CRA compliance. The CRA is federal legislation requiring that financial institutions progressively
seek to enhance community development within the area they serve. On a regular basis, financial
institutions submit information about mortgage loan applications as well as materials documenting
their community development activity. The records are reviewed to determine if the institution
satisfied CRA requirements. The assessment includes a review of records as related to the following:
Commitment to evaluating and servicing community credit needs;
Offering and marketing various credit programs;
Record of opening and closing of offices;
8 The Council is a formal interagency body empowered to prescribe uniform principles, standards and report forms for the
federal examination of financial institutions by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and to make recommendations to
promote uniformity in the supervision of financial institutions.
Rancho Creek Apts. 30
Rancho West Apts. 150
Mission Village Apts. 76
Riverbank Senior Apts. 65
Dalton Historical Building (Dalton II) 24
Palomar Heritage Building (Dalton III) 22
Temecula Reflections 11
Summerhouse 20
Warehouse at Creekside 32
Oaktree Apts. 40
Rancho California Apts. 55
Creekside Apts. 49
Total Units 574
Section 8 Voucers used in Temecula 136
Total Rental Subsidized Units/Vouchers 710
Number
of Units
Affordable Housing
Developments in Temecula
PAGE 22, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Discrimination and other illegal credit practices; and
Community development initiatives.
The data are evaluated and a rating for each institution is determined. Ratings for institutions range
from substantial noncompliance in meeting credit needs to an outstanding record of meeting
community needs. Only one financial institution, Temecula Valley Bank, received CRA exams in
Temecula in the past five years.9 Temecula Valley Bank was most recently examined on March 2,
2009 and received a satisfactory rating. It should be noted that large banks like Wells Fargo, Bank of
America, U.S. Bank, Chase, Pacific Trust and Pacific Western are examined at their regional
headquarter offices; the latest CRA exams for these banks were either Satisfactory or Outstanding.
Mortgage lending. HMDA data are widely used to detect evidence of discrimination in mortgage
lending. In fact, concern about discriminatory lending practices in the 1970s led to the requirement
for financial institutions to collect and report HMDA data. The variables contained in the HMDA
dataset have expanded over time, allowing for more comprehensive analyses and better results.
However, despite expansions in the data reported, HMDA analyses remain limited because of the
information that is not reported.
As such, studies of lending disparities that use HMDA data carry a similar caveat: HMDA data can be
used to determine disparities in loan originations and interest rates among borrowers of different
races, ethnicities, genders, and location of the property they hope to own. The data can also be used
to explain many of the reasons for any lending disparities (e.g., poor credit history). Yet HMDA data
do not contain all of the factors that are evaluated by lending institutions when they decide to make a
loan to a borrower. Basically, the data provide a lot of information about the lending decision—but
not all of the information.
Beginning in 2004, HMDA data contained the interest rates on higher-priced mortgage loans. This
allows examinations of disparities in high-cost, including subprime, loans among different racial and
ethnic groups. It is important to remember that subprime loans are not always predatory or suggest
fair lending issues, and that the numerous factors that can make a loan “predatory” are not adequately
represented in available data. Therefore, actual predatory practices cannot be identified through
HMDA data analysis. However, the data analysis can be used to identify where additional scrutiny is
warranted, and how public education and outreach efforts should be targeted.
The Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of compliance with fair lending regulations. When
federal regulators examine financial institutions, they use HMDA data to determine if applicants of a
certain gender, race or ethnicity are rejected at statistically significant higher rates than applicants with
other characteristics are. The Federal Reserve uses a combination of sophisticated statistical modeling
and loan file sampling and review to detect lending discrimination.
9 All state member banks, state nonmember banks, national banks and savings associations, except small institutions, are
subject to data collection and reporting requirements of CRA. A small institution is a bank or thrift that, as of December
31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total assets of less than $250 million and was independent or an affiliate
of a holding company that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had total banking and thrift
assets of less than $1 billion.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 23
This section uses the analysis of HMDA data to uncover:
The geographic areas in Temecula where high-cost lending and loan denials are concentrated,
and the correlation of these areas with concentrations of minority and low income households;
Disparities in high-cost lending and loan denials across different racial and ethnic groups.
Loan applications in Temecula. During 2010, there were 4,755 loan applications made in Temecula
secured by residential properties that intended to be occupied by owners. Over half (56%) of the loan
applications were for refinances, 42 percent were for home purchases and the remaining 2 percent
were for home improvement. About 2,900 of these loans were conventional loans and the rest were
government-guaranteed loans.
Two-thirds of loan applications in Temecula during 2010 were approved and originated. Fifteen
percent of all loan applications in Temecula were denied. Figure V-18 displays the action taken on
Temecula loan applications in 2010.
Figure V-18.
Loan Applications and Action
Taken, City of Temecula, 2010
Note:
Does not include loans for multifamily properties or
non-occupants.
Source:
FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research &
Consulting.
Denial rates by race and ethnicity. Figure V-19 presents denial rates by race and ethnicity. It is
focused on the largest racial/ethnic groups in Temecula: White, Hispanic, Asian and African
American. African American applicants had the lowest denial rate at 11 percent. Both Hispanic and
Asian borrowers were denied at slightly higher rates than White borrowers. Overall, the differences in
denial, origination and approval rates are modest.
Loan originated
(64.7%)
Application approved but
not accepted (5.0%)
Application denied by
financial institution (15.3%)
Application withdrawn
by applicant (11.4%)
File closed for
incompleteness (3.5%)
PAGE 24, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Figure V-19.
Result of Mortgage Loan Applications by Race and Ethnicity, City of Temecula, 2010
Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants.
Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting.
Another important HMDA analysis involves examining the reasons for denial by type of loan and
applicant. These characteristics may help explain some of the variation in approval rates among
applicants. Figure V-20 show the reasons for denials of loan applications by race and income. As the
table demonstrates, Hispanics and African Americans have a much higher proportion of loans that are
denied because of credit history than Whites and Non-Hispanics, and a smaller percentage of
incomplete loan applications.
Figure V-20.
Reasons for Denials of Loan Applications
by Race and Ethnicity of Applicant, City of Temecula, 2010
Note: Does not include loans for multifamily properties or non-occupants.
Source: FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting.
Race/Ethnicity of Applicant
Overall 64.7% 5.0% 15.3%
White 67.4% 4.6% 14.8%
African American 68.5% 3.8% 10.8%
Asian 60.1% 7.3% 15.9%
non-Hispanic 67.1% 4.9% 14.6%
Hispanic 64.2% 5.4% 17.1%
African American / White difference 1.1% -0.8% -4.1%
Asian / White difference -7.3% 2.7% 1.0%
Hispanic / White difference -3.2% 0.8% 2.2%
Hispanic / non-Hispanic difference -2.9% 0.5% 2.5%
Loans
Originated
Percent of
Loans Denied
Percent of
Applications Approved
but Not Accepted
by Applicant
Overall 23.2% 1.5% 14.8% 23.4% 3.5% 5.3% 10.9% 0.3% 17.2%
White 22.5% 1.2% 13.3% 25.4% 3.7% 5.5% 11.2% 0.0% 17.2%
Black or African American 26.3% 0.0% 31.6% 15.8% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 15.8%
Asian 31.4% 2.0% 15.7% 19.6% 5.9% 7.8% 3.9% 0.0% 13.7%
Not Hispanic or Latino 23.3% 1.5% 12.7% 26.3% 4.0% 4.8% 11.0% 0.4% 16.0%
Hispanic or Latino 23.7% 2.1% 20.6% 14.4% 4.1% 8.2% 6.2% 0.0% 20.6%
Unverifiable
Information
Credit
Application
Incomplete
Mortgage
Insurance
Denied Other
Race/Ethnicity
of Applicant
Debt-to-
Income
Ratio
Employment
History
Credit
History Collateral
Insufficient
Cash
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 25
Denial rate by income by census tract. On average, 15 percent of loan applications in Temecula are
denied. However, an analysis of loan applications by census Tracts reveals that one census Tract in
Temecula has a much higher denial rate of 26 percent. Lenders are much less likely to approve loans
for homes located in this Census tract (432.15). Figure V-21 overlays this high denial census tract
with the low income concentration map. As indicated by the map, this high rate of denial occurs in
the low income concentrated block group.
Figure V-21.
Loan Denials and Percent
of Low Income Households,
City of Temecula
Source:
2009 Claritas, 2010 HMDA and BBC Research
& Consulting.
While higher denial rates are common for lower incomes, residents of all income levels within census
tract 432.15 are denied more frequently than residents with similar incomes in other parts of
Temecula. Figure V-22 compares the denial rates for Temecula as a whole with Census Tract 432.15
for various income levels. Even for those earning 200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year),
residents of census tract 432.15 are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent
citywide.
Figure V-22.
Denials by Income,
City of Temecula, 2010
Notes:
The HUD MFI for Temecula was $65,000 in 2010.
Source:
FFIEC HMDA Raw Data, 2010 and BBC Research & Consulting.
Income Level
Overall 15.3% 26.3%
200% MFI or greater 15.3% 21.0%
150%-199% MFI 13.1% 20.8%
100%-149% MFI 13.7% 35.7%
Less than 100% MFI 18.3% 53.8%
Denials in
Temecula
Denials in
Census Tract
432.15
PAGE 26, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
These data suggest that it is significantly harder for borrowers who live in the city’s lowest income
areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high income households.
Subprime analysis. This section examines how often minorities in Temecula received subprime loans
compared to Whites. For the purposes of this section, we define “subprime” as a loan with an APR of
more than three percentage points above comparable Treasuries. This is consistent with the intent of
the Federal Reserve in defining “subprime” in the HMDA data.
According to the 2010 HMDA data, there were only 18 subprime loans in Temecula, of 3,077
originated loans. There was no indication that subprime loans were targeted to specific racial or ethnic
groups.
Complaints and Legal Review
This section reviews fair housing complaint data and legal cases related to fair housing violations to
highlight the prevalence of and trends in fair housing violations. Fair housing complaint data and
legal cases are important to pinpoint the types of discrimination that are most prevalent and detect
improvements or deterioration in fair housing conditions.
HUD fair housing complaints. Residents who feel they have been discriminated against may
contact HUD directly or the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County.
Contacting HUD. Housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD may be done online at
(http://www.hud.gov/complaints/housediscrim.cfm), by calling 1-800-669-9777 or by contacting the
HUD Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in San Francisco at 1-800-347-3739.
When HUD receives a complaint, the department will notify the person who filed the complaint,
then notify the alleged violator and allow that person to submit a response. The complaint will be
investigated to determine whether there has been a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
A complaint may be resolved in a number of ways. First, HUD attempts to reach an agreement
between the two parties involved. If achieved, this “conciliation agreement” must lay out provisions to
protect the filer of the complaint and public interest. If an agreement is signed, HUD will take no
further action unless the agreement is breached, in which case HUD will recommend that the
Attorney General file suit.
If a person needs immediate help to stop a serious problem being caused by a Fair Housing Act
violation, HUD may assist as soon as a complaint is filed. HUD may authorize the Attorney General
to go to court to seek temporary or preliminary relief, pending the outcome of the complaint, if
irreparable harm is likely to occur without HUD's intervention and there is substantial evidence
indicating a violation of the Fair Housing Act.
From January 1, 2006 through December 15, 2011, five complaints were filed by or against
Temecula residents and businesses. Four complaints were brought on the basis of discrimination
because of disability; the other was because of race. In Riverside County as a whole, 272 complaints
were filed over the same period. Forty-six percent were brought on the basis of discrimination because
of disability and 33 percent on the basis of discrimination because of race, color or national origin.
Familial status accounted for another 11 percent of complaints in Riverside County followed by sex
(8%) and religion (2%).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 27
Figure V-23 displays the complaints filed in Temecula over the past six years. The most common
issues cited were discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate for rental and failure to make reasonable
accommodation. Two complaints closed following a successful settlement. Two more closed after
HUD found “no reasonable cause to believe that housing discrimination occurred.” 10
Figure V-23.
Fair Housing Complaints, City of Temecula, 2006-2011
Notes: Complaints reported for 2011 includes those filed between 1/1/2011 and 12/15/2011.
Complainants are allowed to cite more than one issue when filing a complaint.
Source: HUD and BBC Research & Consulting.
Contacting the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. Residents with fair housing complaints
can also contact the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC), a county-wide non-profit
organization that seeks to affirmatively address and promote fair housing rights and further other
housing opportunities for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex,
familial status, presence of children, disability, ancestry, marital status, or other arbitrary factors. The
FHCRC provides the following fair housing services to communities throughout Riverside County:
Anti-discrimination: Receive, investigate, resolve (through conciliation or referral to enforcement
agency: HUD; DFEH; attorney) housing discrimination complaints; also conduct workshops,
seminars; disseminate written fair housing information. In order to file a complaint a resident
can call the FHCRC or complete a complaint form on their website.
Landlord-tenant: Receive, investigate, mediate, counsel renter/owner rights and responsibilities;
also conduct workshops, seminars; disseminate written landlord-tenant information.
Training and technical assistance: Conduct property management training workshops and
seminars; serve on quasi-government technical advisory and working groups.
10For a definition of no cause determination, please visit:
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/complaint-process
Year
Filed Issue(s) Cited
2006 0
2007 1 Disability Discriminatory terms, conditions, privileges
and failure to make/permit reasonable
accommodation
Conciliated or Resolved, with
compensation of $1,300
2008 1 Disability Failure to make reasonable accommodation Admin
2009 0
2010 1 Disability Discrimination in the making of loans Conciliated or Resolved
1 Race Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate;
discriminatory advertising, statements and
notices; and discriminatory acts under
Section 818
No Cause
2011* 1 Disability Discriminatory refusal to rent and negotiate No Cause
Total 5
Number of
Complaints
Reason for
Discrimination Reason for Closure
PAGE 28, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
Enforcement of housing rights: Conduct housing discrimination audits and tests; refer
discrimination cases to HUD, DFEH or private attorney.
Administrative hearings: Conduct administrative hearings for Public Housing Authority tenant
grievance and Section 8 hearings.
Special projects: The FHCRC conducts and participates in various activities throughout the
year.
Foreclosure prevention: The FHCRC offers confidential one-on-one counseling with certified
housing counselors for residents in fear of foreclosure. The counseling session is designed to help
determine the cause of the delinquency, develop a monthly spending plan and discuss possible
options to enable residents to meet their mortgage obligations.
First time buyers: HUD requires the completion of a Homebuyer Counseling Course for all
borrowers receiving First Time Homebuyer Program assistance.
Legal cases. As part of the fair housing analysis, recent legal cases were reviewed to determine
significant fair housing issues and trends in the area. Although there have been no legal cases in the
City of Temecula, there were several recent legal cases in Riverside County; these are highlighted to
demonstrate regional trends in fair housing violations.
The most recent case involved housing conditions in a mobile home park. One case involved age
restrictions in portions of unincorporated Riverside County. The final two cases took place in the
City of Riverside and involved discrimination on the basis of sex, race and/or family status. These
cases were found on websites maintained by the Department of Justice, the National Fair Housing
Advocate and HUD. In many cases, text was borrowed directly from the legal briefs.
The United States v Harvey Duro (2009). Harvey Duro, a member of the Torres Martinez Desert
Cahuilla Indian tribe operated a desert trailer park commonly called “Duroville” mobile home park,
on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. According to a 2007 Department of Justice press release,
the park consists of 300 to 400 trailers inhabited by 2,000 to 6,000 persons, predominantly migrant
farm workers and their families. Based on health and safety concerns, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
issued a cease and desist order to Duro in 2003 which required him to immediately stop operating the
trailer park and associated businesses, and to return the property to its original condition. Duro
agreed to make improvements to bring the facility into compliance with government codes and
regulations but failed to do so. In 2007 the United States filed a lawsuit against Duro alleging that
Duro was operating without a permit, that conditions at the trailer park posed an imminent threat to
the health and safety of several thousand residents and that Duro failed to make improvements he
promised to make in 2004. Some of the substandard conditions in Duroville included defective
construction, faulty electrical wiring, unhealthful distribution of drinking water and a deeply flawed
septic system. In 2009, the Court provided the following fundamental findings and conclusions: (1)
The commercial mobile home park on its allotment to Harvey Duro, Sr., is unlawful; (2) despite
recent efforts, the mobile home park is unsafe and unhealthy; (3) despite recent efforts, there is no
presently available relocation facilities for the vast majority of the residents of the Park; and (4)
immediate closure of the Park under current circumstances would create an unacceptable
humanitarian crisis for thousands of people.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 29
Based on these findings, the Court appointed a Receiver to administer and manage the Park for two
years. The Receiver was tasked with addressing a number of health and safety concerns and
encouraging park residents to relocate to safe, healthy, affordable and available housing. The court
also encouraged local governmental and non-governmental organizations who had been and wished to
be involved in resolving this crisis to continue their efforts to develop safe, healthy, affordable, and
available housing for the residents of the Park.
Gibson v. County of Riverside (1995, 1997, 2002). Since 1978, the County of Riverside has
enacted ordinances imposing age restrictions on residents in certain areas within the unincorporated
areas of Riverside County. Although the specific age restrictions have changed through the years, the
ordinances effectively limited occupancy to seniors. In May of 1994, several residents filed a
complaint against the county claiming the county's use of its zoning power to impose age restrictions
on the residential use of real property violates the Fair Housing Act, the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
In 1996, the Court concluded the age-restricting ordinance was null and void based on California
state code which declares any zoning decision by a county to be "null and void" if it denies to anyone
the enjoyment of residence because of age. After a series of appeals, in 2002 the Court held that the
county’s actions in enacting ordinances imposing age restrictions on persons occupying dwelling units
in certain areas violated the Fair Housing Act’s prohibition on familial-status based discrimination.
United States v. Wingo (2002). In December of 2000 a complaint was filed against Wingo
Properties that alleged that the owners and managers of two Riverside apartment complexes engaged
in a pattern of discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and by sexually harassing their
female tenants. Apartment manager Vinnie Stancyk subjected female tenants at the complex to
repeated and unwelcome sexual harassment, including conditioning the privileges of tenancy on
tenants performing sexual acts. According to the Justice Department, the property owners William
David Wingo and Karen Wingo Cipriano knew or should have known about this harassment and
took no action to halt or prevent it. In addition, the defendants engaged in a variety of discriminatory
conduct toward black and Latino apartment-seekers, including: refusing to rent to them, throwing
away their rental applications, using racial epithets toward them, refusing to let them have minority
guests, and evicting them because of their race or national origin.
On August 8, 2002, the court entered a consent order that required the defendants to pay $35,000 in
civil penalties and $355,000 into a fund to compensate victims of the defendants' discriminatory
conduct. The consent order also barred the manager of the apartment complexes from working in the
rental real estate business. In addition, the owners of the complexes were required to train all
employees on their obligations under the Fair Housing Act, implement a discrimination complaint
policy, retain an independent agency to conduct at least three fair housing tests per year at each of
their properties, and submit to monitoring by the Justice Department.
Smoke Tree Apartments (1997). In another Riverside case, Smoke Tree Apartments managers John
and Mary Harding agreed to pay $100,000 to settle claims that it had violated the Fair Housing Act
by discriminating on the basis on race and family status. Tenants originally voiced their complaints to
the Fair Housing Council over the alleged segregation of families with children at Smoke Tree
Apartments. Tenants claimed that the owners and managers had reserved one side of the complex for
families with children and the other side of the complex for single or married adults who did not have
PAGE 30, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
children. The plaintiffs also claimed that young children were forbidden to cross over into the "adult"
side of the Smoke Tree complex. Families with children were also allegedly denied use of some of the
Smoke Tree's services and facilities. According to the suit, children were harassed by managers and
unreasonable rules and regulations against children and their families were enforced at Smoke Tree.
The claims of racial discrimination at Smoke Tree Apartments came from a former manager of the
complex. She said in her complaint that she was ordered by the owners to apply discriminatory rental
policies against minorities and families with children. The former manager said that the owners of
Smoke Tree Apartments were aware that the policies were discriminatory.
Fair Housing Impediments, Recommendations and Action Plan
This section summarizes the impediments to fair housing choice identified in the research conducted
for the FY2012-2016 AI and recommends a Fair Housing Action Plan for FY2012-2016.
Fair housing choice in Temecula. As a relatively new city, Temecula does not have past cultural
or institutional barriers to fair housing. Although Temecula residents predominantly identify
themselves as non-Hispanic White, the city has a sizable population of residents with various other
races and Hispanic ethnicity. This analysis found no geographic areas in the city with significant
concentrations by race or ethnicity.
Instead, the city has two areas where low income households are concentrated: The two block groups
just east of I-15 contain 19 and 39 percent of low income households, respectively. These are also the
areas within the city where mortgage loan denials were the highest in 2010. Even for those earning
200 percent of MFI ($130,000 or more per year), residents of one low income census tract (432.15)
are denied 21 percent of the time, compared to only 15 percent citywide. About half of the city’s
affordable housing developments are located in the concentrated areas.
Fair housing barriers related to low income and low income household concentrations were named as
the top two in the city according to residents. It should be noted, however, that all potential barriers
were rated very low by residents (2.4 on a scale of 0 to 9, where 9 is the most serious barrier),
including these two.
Residents report low levels of past experience with housing discrimination (just three percent believe
they have been discriminated against in finding housing and five percent were not sure). There were
only five fair housing complaints filed in Temecula during the past five years and no fair housing
lawsuits. The vast majority of residents responding to the AI survey agree with the statement, “I feel
that people like me and my family are welcome in Temecula.”
Stakeholders, in contrast, ranked potential fair housing barriers with higher levels of seriousness.
Stakeholders named lenders’ failure to disclose private mortgage insurance company determinations
and NIMBYism as the top fair housing barriers in Temecula (both with ratings of 6.6).
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 31
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and Fair Housing Action Plan
This section identifies the impediments to fair housing choice found through the research conducted
for this AI. This section also presents recommended action items for mitigating the identified barriers.
According to HUD, an impediment occurs only if it affects a protected class. Where a protected class
is not directly affected, we have identified a fair housing “observation.”
Observation No. 1—Lack of affordable housing could become a future barrier to housing choice.
According to the survey completed for this AI, one in 10 residents were unable to find affordable
housing in Temecula when there were looking for a place to live. Temecula’s median rent in 2010
was $1,252. Only 36 percent of the city’s renters earn the $50,080 per year necessary to afford
median rent without being cost burdened.
A quantitative comparison of supply and demand for rental housing in Temecula found that there is a
substantial shortage of rental units affordable to low income households. In 2010, 45 percent of all
renter households in Temecula earned less than $35,000, but only 11 percent of all rental units were
affordable to this group. There are approximately 1,400 Temecula residents currently on the waiting
list for housing services with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside.
Is this a fair housing barrier? Lack of affordable housing can lead to income, racial and ethnic
segregation and may disproportionately restrict housing choices for certain protected classes. This may
occur because racial and ethnic minorities have lower incomes or because persons with disabilities
require specific housing accommodations and need affordable housing due to limitations on
employment.
Although it does not appear that the shortage of affordable rentals in the city has led to racial or
ethnic segregation, continued concentration of affordable housing in certain areas of the city could
lead to segregated conditions.
Action item No. 1-1. Continue to diversify housing stock. The City of Temecula should make
a concerted effort to increase the number of affordable rentals located east of I-15.
Action Items No. 1-2. Address the basic needs of low income households. The city should
also use CDBG and other HUD funds it may receive to preserving the safety net for its lowest
income households who have difficulty finding affordable rentals and are likely cost burdened
and/or at risk of homelessness. This could include supporting homeless shelters, food pantries,
emergency assistance programs and social service operations.
Observation No. 2—Steering may be a fair housing impediment. Anecdotal evidence from
stakeholders suggests that steering by real estate agents could be a barrier to fair housing for
Temecula residents.
Stakeholders also rated neighborhood objections to affordable or assisted housing as one of
the most serious barriers to fair housing. Neighborhood opposition to certain types of
housing or residents could influence where real estate agents show their clients homes.
PAGE 32, SECTION V BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
The residents in the AI survey who believe they have experienced housing discrimination in Temecula
most commonly described this discrimination as steering:
h “I felt I was being shown houses where the local predominately White
community would want me to live in.”
h “Realtor steering us away from certain homes.”
h “Single parent.”
h “We were discriminated against by a realtor (seller's agent) who was not ethical
and did not present our offer to the seller.”
Why is this a fair housing barrier? Steering is a violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act. In addition,
steering can perpetuate segregated housing conditions.
Action Item 2. Conduct fair housing outreach and education with Temecula’s real estate
professionals. City staff should present the results of the AI at an event with real estate
professionals and engage in a discussion about steering as a potential impediment to housing
choice. The city should also consider working with a task force sponsored by the real estate
community to better educate residents about fair housing rights (also see Action Item No. 5).
Finally, the city may want to work with a regional fair housing organization to conduct testing
about steering, especially when residential sales activities increase.
Impediment No. 3—Zoning regulations could be improved to facilitate affordable housing
development. Although the zoning review did not find any egregious barriers to affordable housing
creation in Temecula, the review highlighted two fair housing concerns:
Neither household nor family is defined in the city’s zoning code, which may exclude unrelated
persons with disabilities from living together.
Congregate care and residential care facilities with seven or more occupants that are not
specifically for the elderly are omitted from residential zoning uses. This may effectively exclude
congregate care and residential care of seven or more occupants for those with disabilities.
Action Item 3. The city should clarify the definition of family so that it does not exclude
unrelated parties living in group home settings and add congregate care and residential care
facilities with seven or more occupants to some residential zones.
Why is this a fair housing barrier? Zoning regulations that could be interpreted to disallow group
homes occupied by persons with disabilities in residential settings can create barriers to fair housing
choice. It is in a city’s best interest to be transparent about its group home zoning regulations to avoid
misinterpretations that cause unequal access to housing for persons with disabilities.
Observation No. 4—High loan denials in low income areas. It is significantly harder for borrowers
who live in the city’s lowest income areas to obtain a mortgage loan, even for moderate and high
income households. This may be an indicator that the private market is unwilling to invest in such
areas, specifically in the neighborhood immediately west of I-15. Disinvestment could lead to
neighborhood decline if residents are unable to secure loans to improve and maintain their homes.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING SECTION V, PAGE 33
Is this a fair housing barrier? Low income residents are not a protected class under Fair Housing Law;
therefore, lack of mortgage loan approvals in low income areas (if they are not also minority
concentrated areas) is not a fair housing impediment. However, it is prudent for the city to address
this potential issue to avoid neighborhood deterioration caused by lack of private capital invested in
low income areas.
Action Item No. 4. Invest in low income neighborhoods. The city should invest in
community projects in its low income areas. Such investments will mitigate neighborhood
deterioration, which is particularly important given the high rates of loan denials in the areas east
of I-15. In addition, public improvements in low income areas ensure that the amenities offered
in these areas are comparable to amenities in higher income areas. Inequality of neighborhood
amenities can become a fair housing concern if lower quality neighborhoods are predominantly
occupied by members of protected classes.
Observation No. 5—There is a lack of information and knowledge about fair housing.
Information about fair housing is difficult to find on the city’s website and, according to the
survey conducted for this AI, most residents are unaware about how to report fair housing
violations. Although few residents believe that they have experienced housing discrimination,
only 10 percent of residents know who to contact to report housing discrimination.
Stakeholders also expressed concern about the availability of fair housing information and
resources.
Why is this a concern? Lack of fair housing information can become an impediment if such
information is not equally available to all protected classes. In addition, an impediment could be
created if inadequate fair housing information leads to lack of corrective action by housing providers
and real estate professionals.
Action Item No. 5. Improve access to fair housing information. The City of Temecula should
add easy to find fair housing information on its website. An example of a comprehensive website
with fair housing information in a semi-rural, affluent jurisdiction in Colorado is Douglas
County’s (see http://www.douglas.co.us/CDBG/Fair_Housing.html). It is critical that the city
have a link to HUD’s complaint-taking website and the State of California Fair Employment
and Housing Commission, where residents may file complaints if they desire.
The city should also disseminate fair housing information quarterly during the year,
piggybacking on well-attended events (e.g., summer festivals, public school events. Some
communities sponsor fair housing poster contests for local school children).