HomeMy WebLinkAboutSR - CDBG - Fair Housing Rprt CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT
SUBMITTED BY: Frankie Riddle, Director of Special Programs
DATE: June 14, 2007
CONTENT: Analysis of Impediments Report
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion,
1. Approve the Community Development Block Grant Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Report; and
2. Authorize staff to submit the report to the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban
Development.
DISCUSSION:
As part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement process, the City of
Palm Desert was required to prepare an Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Report.
However, since the City was included within the County of Riverside's AI Report and they were
in the final stages of preparing an updated Report that included Palm Desert, the City was
exempt from having to prepare and submit its own AI Report until now. An AI Report must be
undertaken every five (5) years similar to the Consolidated Plan.
Included as part of the AI Report, is the determination of impediments to Fair Housing. If there
are impediments, the Report outlines how the City plans to address those impediments. The
City contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County to conduct audits to
determine if discriminatory practices (impediments) or other types of impediments exist relative
to the protected classes (e.g., disability, national origin, and race) within the rental housing and
sales and mortgage lending institutions within Palm Desert. Fair Housing completed its audits
in March with the final report being submitted in April/May 2007. The results of the Audit Report
do not indicate that there is a significant problem with outright discriminatory practices of the
protected classes within Palm Desert. However, the audits did reveal that the Control Testers
experienced differential treatment in their favor in sQme instances while in other instances the
Protected Class Tester received preferential treatment.
Testers audited the four basic categories (i.e., Availability, Terms & Conditions, Tenant
Qualifications, and Courtesy/Overall Contribution) in each of the protected classes within
property management firms and the four basic categories (i.e., Treatment/Courtesy, Inquiries
Concerning Tester and/or Spouse, Information Regarding Loan Terms Exchange, and
Disparaging Comments) within lending institutions to determine any marked areas of difference.
Discriminatory practices are measured by a difference in treatment when all other factors are
similar. The following table provides a brief breakdown of the audit results and conclusions:
STAFF REPORT-APPROVAL OF CDBG ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT
JUNE 14, 2007
Rental Housing Audit: Based on RACE
Site No. Institution Type Auditor/Tester Class Audit Results
No. 1 Rental Housing Protected Auditor: Female, No finding of differential treatment
African American
Control Auditor: Female,
Caucasian
No. 2 " " Same As Above No findin of differential treatment.
No. 3 " " Same As Above N/A. Testers were seen by different
employees on different days. As a result,
differential treatment could not be
determined.
No. 4 " " Same As Above Testers experienced differential
treatment in Availability and
Courtesy/Contribution Categories in
favor of the Control Tester. No
differences in other categories.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
Rental Housing Audit: Based on DISABILITY
No. 1 Rental Housing Protected Auditor: Female, Testers experienced differential
Disabled treatment in the Availability Category in
Control Auditor: Female, favor of the Control Tester. No
Able-bodied differences in other categories.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
No. 2 " " " " No findin of differential treatment.
No. 3 " " " " No findin of differential treatment.
No. 4 " " " " No findin of differential treatment.
Rental Housing Audit: Based on NATIONAL ORIGIN
No. 1 Rental Housing Protected Auditor: Female, Testers experienced differential
Asian treatment in the Availability Category in
Control Auditor: Female, favor of the Control Tester and
Caucasian Courtesy/Contribution Category in favor
of the Protected Tester. No differences
in other categories.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
No. 2 " " " " N/A. Unable to com lete audit.
No. 3 " " Protected Auditor: Male, No finding of differential treatment.
Hispanic
Control Auditor: Male,
Caucasian
No. 4 " " " " Testers experienced differential
treatment in the Availabilit Cate o in
STAFF REPORT-APPROVAL OF CDBG ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT
JUNE 14, 2007
favor of the Protected Tester. No
differences in other categories.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
Conclusion: Out of the 12 randomly selected sites, the following represent the audit results: Two —
N/A, six—No finding of differential treatment, and four—Differential treatment in favor of Control Tester.
It should be noted that the differential treatment is an overall determination based on the category(ies) in
which the Control Tester was favored over the Protected Tester. In some instances, the Protected
Tester was favored over the Control Tester, while in others there was no difference. Differences
detected in the Courtesy/Contribution category that related to courtesy was not used to determine
differential treatment. This is a very ambiguous determination (e.g., agent could have had a bad day or
experience prior to meeting tester, there could have been only a slight difference in how the agent
interacted with the testers). The results of the audit reveal that there could be some discriminatory
practices within the rental housing field or it could simply be a lack of knowledge of the Fair Housing
Laws and Regulations or more practically how an agents should be consistent in their interaction (words,
actions, materials, etc. with ossible tenants.
Sales � Mortgage Lending Institution: Based on RACE
No. A Lending Protected Auditor: Female, Testers experienced differential
Institutions African American treatment in the followin 1
Control Auditor: Female, g� � �
Treatment/Courtesy Category in favor of
Caucasian the Protected Tester, (2) Inquiries in
favor of the Protected Tester, (3) Loan
Terms Exchange in favor of the Control
Tester, and (4) Disparaging Comments—
no difference.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
No. B " " " " Testers experienced differential
treatment in the following: (1)
TreatmenUCourtesy Category—no
difference, (2) Inquiries— unable to
determine differential treatment, (3) Loan
Terms Exchange— no difference, and (4)
Disparaging Comments—no difference.
Conclusion: No finding of differential
treatment.
No. C " " " " Testers experienced differential
treatment in the following: Unable to
determine differential treatment as
testers were unable to meet with the
same person.
Conclusion: N/A
Sites G, H, and I: Questions and audit
criteria different than above sites.
Information provided is the Recap of
audit.
No. G " " � " " Conclusion: No finding of differential
treatment.
No. H " " " " Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
No. I " " " " Conclusion: No finding of differential
treatment.
STAFF REPORT-APPROVAL OF CDBG ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT
JUNE 14, 2007
Sales 8� Mortgage Lending Institution: Based on NATIONAL ORIGIN
No. D Protected Auditor: Male, Testers experienced differential
Japanese treatment in the following: (1)
Control Auditor: Male, Treatment/Courtesy Category—no
Caucasian difference, (2) Inquiries— no difference,
(3) Loan Terms Exchange in favor of the
Protected Tester, and (4) Disparaging
Comments—no difference.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Protected Tester.
No. E " " " " Testers experienced differential
treatment in the following: (1)
Treatment/Courtesy Category in favor of
the Protected Tester, (2) Inquiries-no
difference, (3) Loan Terms Exchange in
favor of the Protected Tester, and (4)
Disparaging Comments—no difference.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Protected Tester.
No. F " " " " Testers experienced differential
treatment in the following: (1)
Treatment/Courtesy Category in favor of
the Protected Tester, (2) Inquiries in
favor of the Protected Tester, (3) Loan
Terms Exchange—no difference, and (4)
Disparaging Comments—no difference.
Conclusion: Differential treatment in
favor of Control Tester.
Sites J and K: Questions and audit
criteria different than above sites.
Information provided is the Recap of
audit.
No. J " " Protected Auditor: Female, Conclusion: Differential treatment in
Hispanic favor of Protected Tester.
Control Auditor: Female,
Caucasian
No. K " " " " Conclusion: No finding of differential
treatment.
Conclusion: Out of the 11 randomly selected sites, the following represent the audit results: One —
N/A, four— No findings of differential treatment, three — differential treatment in favor of Control Tester,
and three—differential treatment in favor of Protected Tester.
Differential treatment was experienced in all categories in favor of both testers given the specific site
except in the categories of Disparaging Comments. No differential treatment was detected when it came
to the Disparaging Comments Category. It is apparent that education and promotion of Fair Housing
Laws and Regulations is needed. However, it appears as though the differential treatment may be more
from the lack of knowled e of the laws and re ulations than intentional discriminato ractices.
Since the City has a responsibility to educate those working within housing and
mortgage/lending institutions of the Fair Housing Laws and Regulations and to discourage
discriminatory practices, the City sponsored three Fair Housing Practices Workshops targeting
those that work in the professional fields identified above. The City also mailed flyers
announcing these workshops to businesses within Palm Desert that have some association with
housing rental and/or sales. These workshops will be held not less than every two years;
however, as part of its contract, the Fair Housing Council will conduct workshops and attend
. ---�----_-______
STAFF REPORT-APPROVAL OF CDBG ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING REPORT
JUNE 14, 2007
special events to educate people and promote awareness of Fair Housing Laws and
Regulations throughout each year.
The following workshops were sponsored by the City of Palm Desert:
• Fair Housing Laws and Regulations and Lead-Based Paint Hazards conducted on
January 23, 2007
• Tenant/landlord Laws and Practices conducted on February 27, 2007
• Fair Lending Practices conducted on March 27, 2007
The two workshops addressing Fair Housing Laws and Regulation and Tenant/landlord Laws
and Regulation with property management companies and property owners were well attended;
however, the workshop for addressing Fair Lending Practices with banking/lending institutions
had no attendees.
Overall, the AI Report reflects that while there may be some discriminatory practices, it is not a
prevalent practice in Palm Desert, but at the very least, a lack of education on how to approach
potential tenants/clients is obvious. The primary conclusion within the Report reflects that
differential treatment was encountered and the City will implement activities to address
discriminatory practices and promote and educate people of Fair Housing Laws and
Regulations.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the AI Report and authorize staff to submit to
HUD.
Submitted B :
e ApprovaL•
Fra e Riddle Carlos L. Ort a
Director of Special Programs
City Manager
,..��ur: ,--� �
CITY COUNC,II, ,�CTYON:
` �� ' � APPROV�D ✓
` DENIIED �_
� ��`� � , 9� � REC�IVED
OTHER
�`� Sheila R. Gilligan M$STIN DATE
ACM of Community Service
AYES: .n �
NOES: �'�
ABSENT;
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File w.� ity C1erk's 0��'ic�
l:,e�;al �I°�]�tice - �'1��C; - �rialysis of Ilnpeclimed�ts to Fai�-�c�usin�I���rt I��1�c 1 �f i.
���������y ���rt�
��r•c�m: Mc�elfer, Charlene (��.�OELLER@palrr���ri.gannett.com)
i�:r�t: �i�l-�ursddy, F��ril 19, 20Q7 1�:06 PM
�`�r. 11�artinez_, Glc�ria
�uksj�ct. R�: Legal Notic� -CC�P�C� -Analysis of Impediments ta �air Housing F�prt
Ad recieved aild will publisl� oi1 date(s) requested.
�harlene Maeller
F'ubiie Notice Cusfomer Service Rep.
(760)778-4578,Fax(760)778-4731
Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 pm.
DeS01't SUn legal_s_C�thedesertsun.com
__ _-_
& Dese1't POSt Weekly dpwle�alsc�thedesertsun.mm
The Valley's#1 Snurce in News & AdverFising!
-----Original Message-----
From: gmartinez@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:gmartinez@ci.palm-desert.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:04 PM
To: charlene.moeller@desertsun.com
Cc: friddle@ci.palm-desert.ca.us; ahughes@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Subject: Legal Notice - CDBG - Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Rprt
PLEASE PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING:
PUBL/C HEA_RING
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report to be adopted by said body by mid�June 2007.
TWO TIMES IN_THE DESERT SUN
Thursday, May 10, and
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
«Notice -AI & Fair Housing Rprt - PH 061407.doc»
Thank you, Charlene!!!
�bl. G�oria 91�lartinez
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
(760) 346-061 1 Ext. 354
gmartinez@ci.palm-deserf.ca.us
4/19/2007
�i�� �� �t��..r� �������r
��.���� �� �u��d� ��i���i��
���
������ ��o��s.e� ��c�n����� ������
I���`f i�,k: f� �-i�.��E��' C�iVE�I ���H��!`�� � ��uf�lic N�e�r�inc� vvill F�� h�lc� �y th� Gii.y af F�airn
C:��s�r�f �c� r�c:�iv�� puk�iiu ir��auf �r�c� r�c;c�rnr�lend�tic����� �ur��a�nt ta tf�� Hc�usir�c� �nd
�c�►�nrnunity i�ev�fc�pm�r�t l�c� c>f 1�74 �s arn�nded r�gardio�g the �r;�pos�d Ar�alysis of
lrr�pediments to F�ir hio�aving f�eport t� b� �c�apted by said k�ody k�y mid-June 200%.
The City wil� hold the final p�b�t� he�ring on Jur�e 'l�4, �7,.-at 4�<E�(J p.,m. or thereabout
to accept public comment on the proposed Report and make copies available. The
hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,
Palm Desert, CA.
The City, as part of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Report process, wiil
make available the proposed Report at the following location: Palm Desert Civic Center
at 73-510 Fred Waring Dr., Palm Desert, CA 92260.
The general public may request a copy of the document by contacting City Hall at (760)
346-0611, ext. 331 or by picking up a copy at the above location from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m, on Monday, June 11, 2007.
All interestPd agencies, groups, and persons wishing to comment are also invited to
attend the public hearing. Interested parties should appear at the above set public
hearing to provide oral comments on the specified date and location. Written comments
should be addressed as follows:
FRANKIE RIDDLE
DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
April 19, 2007