Fair Housing Survey

Ventura County

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

May 2010

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 1 A. Purpose of Report...... 1 B. Geographic Area Covered ...... 2 C. Legal Framework ...... 2 D. Lead Agency and Funding Sources ...... 6 E. Organization of Report ...... 7 F. Data and Methodology ...... 8

Chapter 2 - Community Outreach ...... 9 A. Public Meetings ...... 9 B. Fair Housing Survey...... 11 C. Public Review of Draft AI ...... 17 D. Service Provider Interviews ...... 17

Chapter 3 - Community Profile ...... 19 A. Demographic Profile ...... 19 B. Household Characteristics ...... 28 C. Income Profile ...... 44 D. Housing Profile ...... 49 E. Housing Cost and Affordability ...... 54 F. Housing Problems ...... 58 G. Assisted Housing...... 62 H. Parks and Recreation Facilities ...... 70 I. Accessibility to Public Transit ...... 73

Chapter 4 - Lending Practices ...... 81 A. Background ...... 81 B. Conventional Home Loans ...... 83 C. Government-Backed Home Loans ...... 102 D. Performance by Lender ...... 108 E. Mortgage Refinancing ...... 113 F. Purchased Loans ...... 116 G. Sub-Prime Lending Market ...... 117 H. Predatory Lending ...... 119 I. Foreclosures ...... 124

Chapter 5 - Public Policies ...... 126 A. Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development ...... 126 B. Building, Occupancy, Health and Safety Codes ...... 142 C. Affordable Housing Development ...... 144 D. Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls ...... 147 E. Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities ...... 151 F. Equal Provision of and Access to Government Services...... 152 G. Local Housing Authorities ...... 154 H. Community Participation ...... 155

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page i

Chapter 6 - Fair Housing Profile ...... 157 A. Fair Housing Practices in the Homeownership Market ...... 157 B. Fair Housing Practices in the Rental Housing Market ...... 164 C. Fair Housing Services ...... 168 D. Fair Housing Statistics ...... 170 E. Hate Crimes ...... 187 F. NIMBYism ...... 188

Chapter 7 - Progress Since 2005 ...... 190 A. Ventura County and Participating Jurisdictions...... 190 B. Fair Housing Service Providers...... 210 C. City of Oxnard ...... 212

Chapter 8 - Impediments and Recommendations ...... 215 A. Continued Impediments and Recommendations from Previous AIs ...... 215 B. New Impediments and Recommendations ...... 222

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page ii

List of Tables

Table 1: Community Meeting Locations ...... 10 Table 2: Perpetrators of Discrimination ...... 13 Table 3: Location of Discrimination ...... 13 Table 4: Basis of Discrimination ...... 14 Table 5: Reason for not Reporting Discrimination ...... 15 Table 6: Basis of Hate Crime ...... 16 Table 7: Public Review Period ...... 17 Table 8: Population Growth ...... 20 Table 9: Age ...... 20 Table 10: Age Distribution ...... 21 Table 11: Racial and Ethnic Composition (Countywide) ...... 22 Table 12: Racial and Ethnic Composition ...... 24 Table 13: Racial Integration ...... 26 Table 14: English Language Ability ...... 27 Table 15: Household Composition and Size ...... 29 Table 16: Families with Children ...... 30 Table 17: Large Households ...... 32 Table 18: Large Units ...... 33 Table 19: Persons with Disabilities...... 35 Table 20: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2010) ...... 41 Table 21: Farmworker Population of Ventura County ...... 42 Table 22: Income Distribution ...... 45 Table 23: Income by Household Type ...... 46 Table 24: Income by Race/Ethnicity ...... 46 Table 25: Housing Growth ...... 49 Table 26: Age of Housing Stock (2000) ...... 50 Table 27: Child Lead Poisoning Cases (2009) ...... 50 Table 28: Housing Tenure ...... 51 Table 29: Tenure by Income ...... 52 Table 30: Housing Stock Mix ...... 52 Table 31: Housing Type and Vacancy ...... 53 Table 32: Home Prices in Ventura County ...... 54 Table 33: Average Apartment Rents by City ...... 55 Table 34: Housing Affordability ...... 57 Table 35: Housing Overpayment by Tenure ...... 58 Table 36: Overcrowded Households (1990 and 2000) ...... 59 Table 37: Overcrowding by Tenure ...... 60 Table 38: Race/Ethnicity of Section 8 Recipients ...... 64 Table 39: Race/Ethnicity of Public Housing Tenants ...... 65 Table 40: Characteristics of Section 8 Recipients ...... 65 Table 41: Licensed Community Care Facilities by Jurisdiction ...... 68 Table 42: Active Parkland (by Jurisdiction) ...... 71 Table 43: Major Employers in Ventura County ...... 74 Table 44: Local Transit Service Providers...... 77 Table 45: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2003) ...... 85 Table 46: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2008) ...... 86

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page iii

Table 47: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2003) ...... 89 Table 48: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2008) ...... 90 Table 49: Conventional Home Purchase Loans versus Ventura County Population ...... 91 Table 50: Approval Rates by Applicant Income (2003) ...... 93 Table 51: Approval Rates by Applicant Income (2008) ...... 93 Table 52: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (Race and Income) (2008) ...... 94 Table 53: Approval Rates by Gender (2003) ...... 97 Table 54: Approval Rates by Gender (2008) ...... 98 Table 55: Lending to Low/Moderate Income Neighborhoods (2003) ...... 100 Table 56: Lending to Low/Moderate Income Neighborhoods (2008) ...... 100 Table 57: Disposition of Home Improvement Loan Applications (2003) ...... 101 Table 58: Disposition of Home Improvement Loan Applications (2008) ...... 102 Table 59: Approval Rates for Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans by Income (2003) ...... 103 Table 60: Approval Rates of Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans by Income (2008) ...... 104 Table 61: Disposition of Government-Backed Home Improvement Loans by Income (2008) ...... 105 Table 62: Approval Rates of Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans ...... 105 Table 63: Top Lenders in Ventura County ...... 108 Table 64: Disposition of Loans by Lending Institution (2003) ...... 111 Table 65: Disposition of Loans by Lending Institution (2008) ...... 111 Table 66: CRA Ratings for Top 10 Lenders in Ventura County ...... 112 Table 67: Disposition of Conventional Mortgage Refinancing Applications (2003) ...... 114 Table 68: Disposition of Conventional Mortgage Refinancing Applications (2008) ...... 114 Table 69: Refinancing of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2003) ...... 115 Table 70: Refinancing of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2008) ...... 115 Table 71: Percent of Loans Purchased by Area and Race of Applicant ...... 117 Table 72: Foreclosures (September 2009) ...... 125 Table 73: Housing Element Status for 2008-2014 Cycle ...... 128 Table 74: Typical Land Use Categories & Permitted Density by Jurisdiction ...... 130 Table 75: Parking Requirements ...... 133 Table 76: Variety of Housing Opportunity ...... 135 Table 77: Farmworker Housing by Jurisdiction ...... 142 Table 78: Affordable Housing Units by Jurisdiction ...... 145 Table 79: Development Fees ...... 146 Table 80: Land Use Policies and Controls ...... 147 Table 81: Park Acreage in Low and Moderate Income Areas ...... 153 Table 82: Park Acreage in Minority Areas ...... 153 Table 83: Ventura County Clients by Jurisdiction ...... 171 Table 84: Discrimination Complaints by Jurisdiction ...... 172 Table 85: Tenant/Landlord Complaints by Jurisdiction ...... 173 Table 86: Discrimination Cases by Jurisdiction ...... 174 Table 87: Findings in Housing Discrimination Cases ...... 175 Table 88: Disposition of Housing Discrimination Cases ...... 176 Table 89: Basis for Discrimination of Complaints filed with DFEH (2004-2009) ...... 181

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page iv

Table 90: Acts of Discrimination for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2004-2009) ...... 182 Table 91: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2004-2009) 183 Table 92: Basis for Discrimination of Cases filed with HUD (2004-2009) ...... 185 Table 93: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Cases Filed with HUD (2004-2009) ...... 186 Table 94: Hate Crimes (2007) ...... 188

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Minority Concentrations...... 25 Figure 2: Low Mod Income Areas in Ventura County ...... 48 Figure 3: Affordable Housing in Ventura County ...... 67 Figure 4: Licensed Care Facilities in Ventura County...... 69 Figure 5: Active Parkland in Ventura County ...... 72 Figure 6: Major Employers and Public Transit in Ventura County ...... 76 Figure 7: Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2003 versus 2008) ...... 83 Figure 8: Race and Ethnicity of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applicants (2008) ...... 87 Figure 9: Race and Ethnicity of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applicants (2003) ...... 88 Figure 10: Conventional Home Purchase Loan Approval Rates by Race/Ethnicity ...... 92 Figure 11: Approval Rates in Low/Mod Areas (2003) ...... 99 Figure 12: Approval Rates in Low/Mod Areas (2008) ...... 99 Figure 13: Top Lenders in Ventura County (2008) ...... 109 Figure 14: Top Lenders in Ventura County (2003) ...... 110 Figure 15: Licensed Care Facilities in Ventura County...... 139

Appendix

Appendix A: Public Outreach Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County Appendix D: Detailed Income Data on Special Needs Populations

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page vi

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Ventura County, one of the safest populated places in the nation, is home to approximately 836,080 residents with an increasingly diverse demographic. The County encompasses 10 incorporated cities and 19 rural and urban unincorporated neighborhoods and communities. Ventura’s proximity to Los Angeles, makes the County a highly desirable place to live. To ensure that Ventura County remains a desirable place to live, civic leaders must make sure that an environment exists where equal access to housing opportunities is treated as a fundamental right. In recognition of this, the federal government and the State of California have both established fair housing choice as a right protected by law.

A. Purpose of Report

The communities within Ventura County have established a commitment towards providing equal housing opportunities for their existing and future residents. Through the federally funded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) programs, among other state and local programs, the jurisdictions of Ventura County work to provide a decent living environment for all.

Pursuant to CDBG regulations [24 CFR Subtitle A §91.225(a)(1)], to receive CDBG funds, a jurisdiction must certify that it “actively furthers fair housing choice” through the following:

• Completion of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI); • Actions to eliminate identified impediments; and • Maintenance of fair housing records.

This report, the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (commonly known as the “AI”), presents a demographic profile of the County of Ventura, assesses the extent of fair housing issues among specific groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for all residents. This report also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 1

B. Geographic Area Covered

This AI covers the entirety of Ventura County, including the ten incorporated cities and all unincorporated areas:

• City of Camarillo • City of Fillmore • City of Moorpark • City of Ojai • City of Oxnard • City of Port Hueneme • City of Santa Paula • City of Simi Valley • City of Thousand Oaks • City of Ventura (San Buenaventura) • Unincorporated areas

C. Legal Framework

Fair housing is a right protected by both Federal and State of California laws. Among these laws, virtually every housing unit in California is subject to fair housing practices.

1. Federal Laws

The federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S. Code §§ 3601-3619, 3631) are federal fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing, including the sale, rental, lease or negotiation for real property. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. In 1988, the Fair Housing Act was amended to extend protection to familial status and people with disabilities (mental or physical). Specifically, it is unlawful to:

• Refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

• Discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 2

• Make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.

• Represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available.

• For profit, induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.

Reasonable Accommodations and Accessibility: The Fair Housing Amendments Act requires owners of housing facilities to make “reasonable accommodations” (exceptions) in their rules, policies, and operations to give people with disabilities equal housing opportunities. For example, a landlord with a "no pets" policy may be required to grant an exception to this rule and allow an individual who is blind to keep a guide dog in the residence. The Fair Housing Act also requires landlords to allow tenants with disabilities to make reasonable access-related modifications to their private living space, as well as to common use spaces, at the tenant’s own expense. Finally, the Act requires that new multi- family housing with four or more units be designed and built to allow access for persons with disabilities. This includes accessible common use areas, doors that are wide enough for wheelchairs, kitchens and bathrooms that allow a person using a wheelchair to maneuver, and other adaptable features within the units.

2. California Laws

The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) enforces California laws that provide protection and monetary relief to victims of unlawful housing practices. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code §§12955 et seq.) prohibits discrimination and harassment in housing practices, including:

• Advertising • Application and selection process • Unlawful evictions • Terms and conditions of tenancy • Privileges of occupancy • Mortgage loans and insurance • Public and private land use practices (zoning) • Unlawful restrictive covenants

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 3

The following categories are protected by FEHA:

• Race or color • Ancestry or national origin • Sex • Marital status • Source of income • Sexual Orientation • Familial status (households with children under 18 years of age) • Religion • Mental/Physical Disability • Medical Condition • Age

In addition, the FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations and accessibility provisions as the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics.

Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can be: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage.

The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act are not allowed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 4

In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 111135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including:

• Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520) • Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing (SB 2) • Housing for extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units (AB 2634)

3. Fair Housing Defined

In light of the various pieces of fair housing legislation passed at the federal and state levels, fair housing throughout this report is defined as follows:

A condition in which individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have a like range of choice available to them regardless of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other category which may be defined by law now or in the future.

Housing Issues, Affordability, and Fair Housing

The U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Division draws a distinction between housing affordability and fair housing. Economic factors that affect a household’s housing choices are not fair housing issues per se. Only when the relationship between household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors create misconceptions, biases and differential treatments would fair housing concerns arise.

Tenant/landlord disputes are also typically not related to fair housing. Most disputes between tenants and landlords result from a lack of understanding by either or both parties on their rights and responsibilities. Tenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination cross paths when the disputes are based on factors protected by fair housing laws and result in differential treatments.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 5

4. Impediments Defined

Within the legal framework of federal and state laws and based on the guidance provided by HUD’s Fair Housing Planning Guide, impediments to fair housing choice can be defined as:

Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, source of income which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; or

Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, source of income.

To affirmatively promote equal housing opportunity, a community must work to remove impediments to fair housing choice. Furthermore, eligibility for certain federal funds requires the compliance with federal fair housing laws.

D. Lead Agency and Funding Sources

This report, prepared through a collaborative effort among the staff of participating jurisdictions, is funded with CDBG funds. The Ventura County, County Executive Office served as the lead agency of this effort. Participating jurisdictions include:

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 6

E. Organization of Report

This report is divided into eight chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction defines “fair housing” and explains the purpose of this report.

Chapter 2: Community Participation describes the community outreach program and summarizes comments from residents and various agencies on fair housing issues such as discrimination, housing impediments, and housing trends.

Chapter 3: Community Profile presents the demographic, housing, and income characteristics in Ventura County. Major employers and transportation access to job centers are identified. The relationships among these variables are discussed. In addition, this section evaluates if community care facilities, public and assisted housing projects, as well as Section 8 recipients in the County are unduly concentrated in Low and Moderate Income areas. Also, the degree of housing segregation based on race is evaluated by computing the Index of Dissimilarity.

Chapter 4: Mortgage Lending Practices assesses the access to financing for different groups. Predatory and subprime lending issues are discussed.

Chapter 5: Current Fair Housing Profile evaluates existing public and private programs, services, practices, and activities that assist in providing fair housing in the County. This chapter also assesses the nature and extent of fair housing complaints and violations in different areas of the County. Trends and patterns of impediments to fair housing, as identified by public and private agencies, are included.

Chapter 6: Public Policies analyzes various public policies and actions that may impede fair housing within the County and the participating cities.

Chapter 7: Achievements of the 2005 AI assesses the progress made since the preparation of the 2005 Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice.

Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations summarizes the findings regarding fair housing issues in Ventura County and provides recommendations for furthering fair housing practices.

At the beginning of this report is a Signature Page that includes the signature of the Chief Elected Official, together with a statement certifying that the Analysis of Impediments represents the jurisdiction's official conclusions regarding impediments to fair housing choice and the actions necessary to address identified impediments.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 7

F. Data and Methodology

According to the Fair Housing Planning Guide, HUD does not require the jurisdictions to commence a data collection effort to complete the AI. Existing data can be used to review the nature and extent of potential issues. Various data and existing documents were reviewed to complete this AI, including:

• 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census • 2005-2007 American Community Survey1 • 2009 State Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates • 2005 Ventura County Fair Housing Assessment • 2005 City of Simi Valley AI • 2003 City of Oxnard AI • Zoning ordinances, various plans, and resolutions of participating jurisdictions • California Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division • 2009 Employment Development Department employment and wage data • 2008 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data on lending activities • Current market data for rental rates, home prices, and foreclosure activities • Ventura Council of Governments projections • Fair housing records from the Housing Rights Center and Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley • Section 8 data from local Housing Authorities • 2009 Ventura County Real Estate and Economic Outlook

Sources of specific information are identified in the text, tables, and figures.

1 According to “American Community Survey – What Researchers Need to Know”, the Census Bureau cautions the direct comparison between the American Community Survey (ACS) data and data from the previous Censuses, particularly as it relates to income, age, and household characteristics, as different methodologies were used or questions were asked in collecting the sample. The most significant difference is that the 2000 Census is point-in-time data; whereas the ACS is period data. The ACS was developed with a sample each year and data presented for 2005- 2007 represents an averaging of the sampling results over three years. An issue with this methodology is that when conditions in 2005 were substantially different than in 2007, the averaging would “dilute” the data and therefore does not present an accurate picture of the conditions. For example, the housing market conditions in 2005 were almost a 180-degree turn compared to those in 2007. Averaging over these three years would not reflect the sharp changes in conditions. Professor Paul Ong of UCLA School of Public Policy cautioned the use of ACS in a newspaper article. Therefore, ACS data in this report is presented as percentages and used only as additional references. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 1: Introduction May 2010 Page 8

Chapter 2 - Community Outreach

This Analysis of Impediments report has been developed to provide an overview of laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect an individual’s or a household’s access to housing. As part of this effort, the report incorporates the issues and concerns of residents, housing professionals, and service providers. To assure the report responds to community needs, a community outreach program consisting of three public meetings, a fair housing survey, and interviews with key agencies was conducted in the development of this report. This chapter describes the community outreach program conducted to involve the community.

A. Public Meetings

Three public meetings were held in communities throughout the County to solicit input from the general public and housing professionals, including:

• Real estate associations/realtors • Apartment owners and managers associations • Banks and other financial institutions • Fair housing service providers • Supportive service providers and advocacy groups (e.g., for seniors, families, disabled persons, immigrant groups) • Educational institutions • Faith-based organizations • Housing providers

As summarized in Table 1, meetings were held for the eastern and western areas of the County and the City of Oxnard. One meeting was held for the western County jurisdictions at the County of Ventura Government Center (November 5, 2009), one in the City of Oxnard (November 9, 2009), and one for the eastern County jurisdictions in the City of Simi Valley (November 12, 2009). All three meetings were open to everyone in the County. Residents, service providers, housing professionals, and community stakeholders were encouraged to attend any one of the three meetings that was convenient to them. The exact locations and dates of the meetings were as follows:

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 9

Table 1: Community Meeting Locations Focus Area Location Date Hall of Administration Lower Plaza Assembly Room Thursday, West County 800 South Victoria Avenue November 5, 2009 Ventura, CA 93009 Oxnard Public Library Monday, Oxnard 251 South "A" Street November 9, 2009 Oxnard, CA 93030 Council Chamber Thursday, East County 2929 Tapo Canyon Road November 12, 2009 Simi Valley, CA 93063

To encourage attendance and participation, the meetings were publicized through the following methods:

• Sent invitations to over 600 Section 8 landlords. • Distributed flyers to 780 public housing tenants of the Oxnard Housing Authority. • Distributed flyers to over 300 service agencies, housing professionals, and community groups. • Purchased ads in the Ventura County Star 15 days prior to the date of the first meeting. • Purchased ads (in both English and Spanish) in VIDA Newspaper, a free weekly bilingual newspaper that is distributed in Oxnard/Port Hueneme/El Rio. • The City of Oxnard purchased 60 one-minute radio spots that aired on Radio Lazer, KOXR and Gold Coast Broadcasting. • Flyers were posted on the websites of participating jurisdictions.

Despite extensive outreach efforts, attendance at the November meetings was minimal. A total of 29 residents and representatives of service provider agencies attended these meetings. In general, community workshops on fair housing issues receive little attention from the public. Often, people participate in such workshops only if they are directly impacted by fair housing issues.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 10

Workshop Participants

Aside from interested individuals and staff from the various cities and the County, several service providers and housing professionals participated in the fair housing public meetings. These included:

• Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation • California Rural Legal Assistance • Housing Rights Center-Los Angeles • Conejo Valley Association of Realtors • Forsyth & Rizzie Realtors • Prudential California Realty

Key Issues Identified

In reviewing the comments received at these meetings, several key issues are noted:

• Discrimination based on source of income (e.g. welfare, Section 8) is common. • Discrimination against indigenous persons (e.g. Mixteco) occurs in Ventura County. 2 • Section 8 requirements are unclear. Landlords need to be informed about what their obligations are regarding Section 8 tenants. • Reasonable accommodations requirements are unclear. Landlords and tenants need to be informed about whose responsibility it is to pay for accessibility improvements. • Local jurisdictions provide financial assistance to homeowners for accessibility improvements; however, no assistance is available for renters.

B. Fair Housing Survey

The Fair Housing Survey sought to gain knowledge about the nature and extent of fair housing issues experienced by County residents. The survey consisted of ten questions designed to gather information on a person’s experience with fair housing issues and perception of fair housing issues in his/her neighborhood. A copy of the survey is included as Appendix A.

2 Mixteco persons are indigenous Mesoamerican peoples who come from the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Puebla in a region known as La Mixteca. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 11

The survey was made available in English and Spanish and distributed via the following methods:

• Distributed at community locations and public counters of the participating jurisdictions. • Posted on the web sites of the participating jurisdictions. • Solicited the participation of service providers to also post the link to the survey on their sites and to help distribute surveys to their clients.

Because responses to the survey were not controlled, results of the survey are used only to provide some insight regarding fair housing issues, but cannot be treated as a statistically valid survey.3 Furthermore, fair housing is a complex issue, therefore, a survey of this nature can only explore the perception of housing discrimination but cannot be used as proofs of actual discrimination.

Who Responded to the Survey?

A total of 527 persons responded to the Fair Housing Survey. The responses were from residents representing zip codes across the entire County, with concentrations of respondents from the following jurisdictions:

• Santa Paula • Simi Valley • Oxnard

The higher number of respondents from these jurisdictions does not necessarily mean that more discriminatory activities occurred in these communities. A number of other factors can influence the rate of response, including:

• Residents in these communities are typically more active in participating in community events and civic matters; and/or • These communities were more effective in promoting the survey.

A vast majority of survey recipients felt that housing discrimination was not an issue in their neighborhoods. Of the 516 responses, approximately 81 percent (417 persons) had not experienced housing discrimination.

Who Do You Believe Discriminated Against You?

Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 79 percent (72 persons) indicated that a landlord or property manager had discriminated against them, while 23 percent (21 persons) of respondents identified a city or county staff person as the

3 A survey with a “controlled” sample would, through various techniques, “control” the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents to ensure that the respondents are representative of the general population. This type of survey would provide results that are statistically valid but is much more costly to administer. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 12 source of discrimination. In the survey, this question was not mutually exclusive; respondents had the option of listing multiple perpetrators of discrimination.

Table 2: Perpetrators of Discrimination Number Percent Landlord/Property Manager 72 79.1% City/County Staff 21 23.0% Real Estate Agent 11 12.1% Mortgage Lender 0 0.0% Total Responses 91 --- Note: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question.

Where Did the Act of Discrimination Occur?

Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 59 percent (54 persons) indicated that the discrimination they experienced occurred in an apartment complex. About 25 percent (23 persons) indicated that the discrimination occurred in a single-family home (most likely renters renting homes), and 19 percent (17 persons) indicated that it took place when applying to a City/County program.

Table 3: Location of Discrimination Number Percent Apartment Complex 54 58.0% Single-Family Neighborhood 23 24.7% When Applying to a City/County Program 17 18.3% Public/Subsidized Housing Project 12 12.9% Condo Development 8 8.6% Trailer/Mobile park 8 8.6% Total 93 --- Note: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 13

On What Basis Do You Believe You Were Discriminated Against?

Of the 93 people who felt they were discriminated against, 40 percent (37 persons) indicated that they believed the discrimination was based on familial status, 39 percent (36 persons) believed it was based on race, 26 percent (24 persons) believed it was based on their source of income, and 22 percent (20 persons) believed it was based on their age. Other responses included discrimination based on disability, gender, and marital status.

Table 4: Basis of Discrimination Number Percent Family Status 37 39.7% Race 36 38.7% Source of Income 24 25.8% Age 20 21.5% Other 17 18.2% Color 15 16.1% Disability 12 12.9% Gender 10 10.7% Marital Status 10 10.7% National Origin 8 8.6% Religion 5 5.3% Ancestry 2 2.1% Sexual Orientation 1 1.0% Total 93 --- Note: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question.

Requests for Reasonable Accommodation

Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 16 percent (13 persons) indicated that they had been denied “reasonable accommodation” in rules, policies or practices for their disability. Typical requests denied included modifications for wheelchair use and the addition of a service animal.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 14

Why Did You Not Report the Incident?

Of the survey respondents who felt they were discriminated against, only 23 percent reported the discrimination incident. Many of the respondents who did not report the incident indicated that they did not know where to report the incident (59 percent or 33 persons) or they did not believe reporting would make a difference (45 percent or 25 persons) and 25 percent (14 persons) felt it was too much trouble. Another 18 percent (10 persons) were afraid of retaliation.

Table 5: Reason for not Reporting Discrimination Number Percent Don't know where to report 33 58.9% Don't believe it makes a difference 25 44.6% Too much trouble 14 25.0% Afraid of Retaliation 10 17.9% Total 56 --- Note: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 15

What Was the Basis of the Hate Crime Against You?

Of all respondents completing the survey, nine percent (36 persons) indicated that a hate crime had been committed in their neighborhood. More than half (61 percent or 20 persons) indicated the hate crime was based on race, 30 percent (10 persons) stated it was based on color, and another 27 percent (nine persons) each claimed religion, gender, and age.

Table 6: Basis of Hate Crime Number Percent Race 20 60.6% Color 10 30.3% Religion 9 27.3% Gender 9 27.3% Age 9 27.3% Other 9 27.3% Sexual Orientation 8 24.2% National Origin 6 18.2% Family Status 6 18.2% Disability 6 18.2% Ancestry 5 15.2% Marital Status 5 15.2% Source of Income 3 9.1% Total 34 --- Note: 1. Categories are not mutually exclusive 2. Survey respondents were not required to provide answers for every question; therefore, total responses will vary by question

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 16

C. Public Review of Draft AI

The Draft AI was available for a 30-day public review. Individual jurisdictions initiated separate 30-day review and approval processes. Notices of availability of the document and/or public hearings were published in newspaper(s) of general circulation. Copies of these notices can be found in Appendix A.

Table 7: Public Review Period Jurisdiction 30-Day Review Period City of Camarillo April 9, 2010-May 9, 2010 City of Fillmore April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010 City of Moorpark April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010 City of Ojai April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010 City of Oxnard April 11, 2010-May 11, 2010 City of Port Hueneme April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010 City of Santa Paula April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010 City of Simi Valley April 10, 2010-May 10, 2010 City of Thousand Oaks March 29, 2010-April 27, 2010 City of Ventura April 16, 2010-May 17, 2010 County of Ventura April 1, 2010-April 30, 2010

D. Service Provider Interviews

In addition to the input given by representatives of service agencies and housing professionals in attendance at the community workshops, informal interviews were conducted via email and telephone to obtain additional input. The following agencies/entities were interviewed:

• Housing Rights Center-Los Angeles • Tri-Counties Community Housing Corporation (TCCHC) • Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing Project (MICOP) • California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) • Barbara Macri-Ortiz, Private Attorney

The detailed comments from these entities can be found in Appendix A.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 17

Key Issues Identified

Interviews with service providers provided insight into the following issues and recent trends that have become more noticeable in the region:

• There has been an increase in discrimination of tenants based on family size. Discrimination of large families and those with children is masked as overcrowding.

• Another segment of the population that is being greatly discriminated against is those who were at one time incarcerated. There are many onerous rules, such as no public housing or voucher assistance until an individual is off parole or probation.

• A number of clients have complained about the inappropriate behavior of Housing Authority staff.

• Training on fair housing laws and issues is needed for landlords and resident managers.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 2: Community Outreach May 2010 Page 18

Chapter 3 - Community Profile

Ventura County, with a reputation as one of the safest populated places in the country, boasts a population of approximately 836,080 residents. The County includes 10 incorporated cities and various unincorporated neighborhoods and communities. Ventura County is located just northwest of Los Angeles County and is bordered by Kern County to the north, Santa Barbara County to the west and the Pacific Ocean to the southwest. The County is considered moderately sized and covers 1,843 square miles with 43 miles of coastline.

This chapter provides an overview of Ventura County’s residents and housing stock, including population, economic, and housing trends which help to identify housing needs and potential fair housing concerns specific to the County. This overview provides the context for discussing and evaluating fair housing in the following chapters.

A. Demographic Profile

Examination of demographic characteristics provides some insight regarding the need and extent of equal access to housing in a community. Factors such as population growth, age characteristics, and race/ethnicity all help determine a community’s housing needs and play a role in exploring potential impediments to fair housing choice. Supply and demand factors can create market conditions that are conducive to housing discrimination.

1. Population Growth

A majority of the population and industry is located in the southern unincorporated portions of the County, as well as in its ten incorporated cities: Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks.

As shown in Table 8, the County population grew by about 13 percent between 1990 and 2000 and another 11 percent between 2000 and 2009. The County’s population began to noticeably increase beginning in 1997; however, overall growth during the 1990s was below that of the preceding decades and was modest relative to the nearby counties of Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino.

As in the past, the bulk of the recent population growth has occurred in cities rather than in the unincorporated areas of the County due to the Save Our Agricultural Resources (SOAR) Initiative (discussed later) and the Guidelines for Orderly Development. These Guidelines, which have been adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, all City Councils, and the Local Agency Formation Commission, encourage urban development within incorporated cities, rather than in the unincorporated area. For the period of 2000-2009, Camarillo and Moorpark experienced the greatest population growth. The cities of Fillmore, Oxnard, and

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 19

Simi Valley also experienced substantial population growth during that same time period, while Ojai and Santa Paula were the slowest growing cities.

Table 8: Population Growth 1990-2000 2000-2009 City/Area 1990 2000 2009 % Change % Change Camarillo 52,303 57,077 66,149 9.1% 15.9% Fillmore 11,992 13,643 15,639 13.8% 14.6% Moorpark 25,494 31,415 37,086 23.2% 18.1% Ojai 7,613 7,862 8,157 3.3% 3.8% Oxnard 142,216 170,358 197,067 19.8% 15.7% Port Hueneme 20,319 21,845 22,171 7.5% 1.5% Santa Paula 25,062 28,598 29,725 14.1% 3.9% Simi Valley 100,217 111,351 125,814 11.1% 13.0% Thousand Oaks 104,352 117,005 128,564 12.1% 9.9% Ventura 92,575 100,916 108,787 9.0% 7.8% Unincorporated County 86,873 93,127 96,921 7.2% 4.1% County Total 669,016 753,197 836,080 12.6% 11.0% Sources: Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000; California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates, 2009.

2. Age Characteristics

Housing demand is affected by the age characteristics of residents in a community. Different age groups are often distinguished by important differences in lifestyle, family type, housing preferences and income levels. Typically, young adult households may occupy apartments, condominiums, and smaller single-family homes because of size and/or affordability. Middle-age adults may prefer larger homes as they begin to raise their families, while seniors may prefer apartments, condominiums, mobile homes, or smaller single-family homes that have lower costs and less extensive maintenance needs. Because the community’s housing needs change over time, this section analyzes changes in the age distribution of Ventura County residents and how these changes affect housing need.

Table 9: Age Age Group Ventura County 0 - 4 Years 7.5% 5 - 17 Years 21.0% 18 - 24 Years 9.0% 25 - 44 Years 30.7% 45 - 54 Years 13.6% 55 - 64 Years 8.1% 65+ 10.2% Total 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 20

Based on the 2000 Census, 10.2 percent of the population in Ventura County was age 65 or over (elderly), with another 8.1 percent in the 55 to 64 age group (future elderly). The elderly generally place higher demands on a community to provide health and human services. Compared to neighboring counties, Ventura County has the second highest proportion of elderly residents. The proportion of elderly persons to the entire population in Survey respondents indicated neighboring counties in 2000 was: 9.7 percent in Los familial status (families with Angeles County; 9.4 percent in Kern County; and children under the age of 18) as 12.7 percent in Santa Barbara County. The County the most frequent basis of housing has a large percentage of adults between the age of discrimination. 25 and 44, indicating a substantial number of potential first-time homebuyers (Table 9). This age structure also suggests the County has a high proportion of families with children. Approximately 21 percent of Ventura County residents were school-age children between the ages of five and 17.

The median age of the County was 34.2 years in 2000, the highest among its neighboring counties (Los Angeles 32.0, Kern 30.6, and Santa Barbara 33.4). This high median age is due mostly to Ventura County's high proportion of adults between 25 and 54 years of age and seniors (over 65). Table 10 shows a comparison of the median age and the percentage of three age groups among the incorporated cities. Median age was the highest in the City of Ojai, followed by the cities of Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura.

Table 10: Age Distribution Median Birth to 5 Under 18 Over 65 City/Area Age Years old Years of Age Years of Age Camarillo 38.9 6.6% 25.3% 17.0% Fillmore 29.8 8.4% 32.3% 10.4% Moorpark 31.5 8.1% 34.2% 4.5% Ojai 42.0 4.9% 24.9% 17.9% Oxnard 28.9 8.9% 31.8% 8.1% Port Hueneme 30.3 8.8% 27.6% 10.7% Santa Paula 29.6 8.8% 31.4% 10.7% Simi Valley 34.7 7.3% 28.4% 7.6% Thousand Oaks 37.7 6.7% 26.0% 7.6% Ventura 36.8 6.6% 25.0% 12.8% All of Ventura County 34.2 7.5% 28.4% 10.2% State 33.3 7.3% 27.3% 10.6% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Differences in age distributions of target populations with different service needs are worth noting. As shown in Table 10, the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard, and Santa Paula had the highest proportions of younger residents, and the cities of Ojai, Camarillo, and Ventura had the highest proportions of seniors. Furthermore, the table indicates that two cities, Fillmore and Santa Paula, had a greater proportion of both youth (under 18 years) and seniors (age 65+) than the County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 21

One of the most important demographic changes taking place in the United States, California, and Ventura County today is the aging of the population, particularly the baby boomer generation. Baby boomers were born between the years 1946 and 1964 and are therefore between the ages of 45 and 63 today. Baby boom offspring, labeled by demographers as “Generation Y”, is the largest generation born in Ventura County. The generation Y group now represents children (and young adults) between the ages of 14 and 33. They became dominant in the local labor and consumer markets in 2008. In Ventura County, the generation Y represents over one-half of the total population, whereas their parents, the boomers, comprise roughly one-fifth of the total population.

3. Racial and Ethnic Composition

Housing needs and preferences are sometimes influenced by cultural practices. The nation’s demographic profiles are becoming increasingly diverse in their racial and ethnic compositions. In 2000, at least three out of ten U.S. residents were non-Whites.

According to the 2000 Census, the racial/ethnic composition of Ventura County's population was: 57 percent White (non-Hispanic); 33 percent Hispanic; 5 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; 2 percent Black; 2 percent indicating two or more races; and less than 1 percent other ethnic groups (see Table 11). In comparison, the State-wide ethnic distribution was slightly more diverse, with 47 percent White (non-Hispanic); 32 percent Hispanic; 11 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; 6 percent Black; 2 percent two or more races; and less than 1 percent other ethnic groups.

Table 11: Racial and Ethnic Composition (Countywide) 1990 % 2000 % of 1990-00 Ethnic Group County of Total County Total % Increase Non-Hispanic White 440,555 65.9% 427,449 56.8% -3.0% Black or African American 14,559 2.2% 13,490 1.8% -7.9% Hispanic or Latino 176,952 26.4% 251,734 33.4% 42.0% American Indian or Alaska Native 3,430 0.5% 3,177 0.4% -8.0% Asian 32,665 4.9% 40,831 5.4% 25.0% Other 855 0.1% 1,122 0.1% 31.2% Two or more races Not available -- 15,394 2.0% -- Total Population 669,016 100% 753,197 100% 12.6% Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000. Note: The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, because 1990 Census data does not conform to this new method, a demographic comparison over time is not possible using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 22

Between 1990 and 2000, population growth among the different ethnic groups varied substantially from the County's overall population growth of 12.6 percent. The White (non- Hispanic) population decreased 3 percent; the Black (non-Hispanic) population decreased about 8 percent; and the Hispanic population grew 42 percent. The County has also experienced a significant growth in its Asian population. While the 2000 Census indicated only 5 percent (or 40,831 persons) of the population as Asian, this represents more than a 25- percent increase from the 1990 Census.

Racial and Ethnic Concentrations

Patterns of racial and ethnic concentration are present within particular areas of Ventura County. As summarized in Table 12, racial and ethnic composition varies considerably across jurisdictions. Ojai and Thousand Oaks had the smallest minority populations, 20 percent and 22 percent respectively, and Oxnard, at 79 percent, had the largest. Moorpark was the only city in the County with a racial/ethnic distribution similar to the County as a whole. All jurisdictions experienced a decrease in their non-Hispanic White populations; however, Ojai is the only city with a non-Hispanic White population of approximately 80 percent. In Fillmore, Oxnard, and Santa Paula, the majority of the residents were Hispanic. Concentration of Asians in Oxnard and Camarillo also exist, as well as concentrations of Blacks in both Oxnard and Port Hueneme.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 23

Table 12: Racial and Ethnic Composition American Two Black or Hispanic Non- Indian or or Asian African or Hispanic Other City/Area Alaska More American Latino White Native races Camarillo 7.3% 1.4% 15.5% 0.4% 72.8% 0.2% 2.5% Fillmore 0.8% 0.2% 66.6% 0.5% 30.6% 0.2% 1.1% Moorpark 5.6% 1.4% 27.8% 0.3% 62.4% 0.2% 2.3% Ojai 1.7% 0.6% 15.8% 0.3% 79.6% 0.1% 1.8% Oxnard 7.5% 3.5% 66.2% 0.4% 20.6% 0.1% 1.7% Port Hueneme 6.5% 5.6% 41.0% 0.7% 42.7% 0.2% 3.3% Santa Paula 0.7% 0.2% 71.2% 0.5% 26.4% 0.1% 0.8% Simi Valley 6.4% 1.2% 16.8% 0.4% 72.7% 0.2% 2.4% Thousand Oaks 5.9% 1.0% 13.1% 0.3% 77.7% 0.1% 1.9% Ventura 3.0% 1.3% 24.3% 0.6% 68.1% 0.2% 2.5% Unincorporated 3.4% 1.3% 24.7% 0.5% 68.1% 0.2% 1.8% County County Total 5.4% 1.8% 33.4% 0.4% 56.8% 0.1% 2.0% State 11.1% 6.4% 32.4% 0.5% 46.7% 0.2% 2.7% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. Note: The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, because 1990 Census data does not conform to this new method, a demographic comparison over time is not possible using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category.

Figure 1, on the following page, illustrates concentrations of minority households by Census block group in Ventura County. A "concentration" is defined as a block group whose proportion of minority households is greater than the overall Ventura County average of 43.4 percent, and a "high concentration" is defined as a block group whose proportion of minority households is at least double the overall County average.4 As shown in Figure 1, high minority concentrations are found in the northeast portions of the County’s unincorporated areas around Piru, and in the cities of Oxnard, Fillmore, and Santa Paula.

4 This definition of concentration is derived from the concept of Location Quotient (LQ), which is calculated by comparing the proportion of one group in a smaller geographic unit (e.g. block group) to the proportion of that group in the larger population (e.g. county). Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 24

Figure 1: Minority Concentrations Figure 1: Minority Concentrations

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 25

Residential Segregation

Residential segregation refers to the degree to which Survey respondents indicated groups live separately from one another. The term race as the second most frequent segregation historically has been linked to the basis for housing discrimination. forceful separation of racial groups. However, as more minorities move into suburban areas and outside of traditional urban enclaves, segregation is becoming increasingly self imposed. Originally, many ethnic groups gravitated to ethnic enclaves where services catered to them, and not until they reached a certain economic status could they afford to move to outer suburban areas. Unlike the original enclaves, now living in an ethnic community is often a choice many are making. While some people believe that newly arrived immigrants in highly concentrated ethnic communities may resist blending into the mainstream, primarily because of the proliferation of native-language media and retail businesses, others feel that immigrants living with persons of similar heritage create a comfort zone that may help them transition to the mainstream and improve their economic situation. Some researchers have evaluated the degree of racial and ethnic integration as an important measure or evidence of fair housing opportunity.

Different statistical techniques are used to measure the degree of segregation experienced by different racial/ethnic groups, including the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index, presented in Table 13 represents the percentage of one group that would have to move into a new neighborhood to achieve perfect integration with another group. An index score can range in value from 0, indicating complete integration, to 100, indicating complete segregation. A value of 60 (or above) is considered very high, values of 40 or 50 are usually considered a moderate level of segregation, and values of 30 or below are considered to be fairly low. A high value indicates that the two groups tend to live in different Census tracts.

Table 13: Racial Integration Race/Ethnic Group Percent of Total Population Dissimilarity Index with Whites Non-Hispanic White 56.8% -- Hispanic or Latino 33.4% 58.1 Asian 5.2% 34.0 Black or African American 1.8% 50.3 Sources: Bureau of the Census, 2000; www.censusscope.org Note: The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, CensusScope data on racial integration using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 26

In Ventura County, the dissimilarity indices reveal that the region is a moderately segregated community in which people of different races and ethnic backgrounds tended to live in relative isolation to one another. The highest level of segregation exists between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites (58.1 percent) and the lowest between Asians and Non-Hispanic Whites (34 percent).

Language Spoken at Home

In 2000, approximately 28 percent of all Ventura Service providers at community County residents speak languages other than English workshops indicated that at home, and only 15 percent speak English “less than linguistic isolation is particularly very well.” Linguistic isolation is slightly more an issue among speakers of prevalent among the Hispanic population. Mixteco languages. Approximately 27 percent of Ventura County residents speak Spanish at home and approximately 14 percent of these persons speak English “less than very well.” In comparison, four percent of Ventura County residents speak Asian languages at home and less than two percent of these persons speak English “less than very well.” Language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing of choice. According to American Community Survey data, approximately 64 percent of Ventura County residents spoke only English between 2005 and 2007.

Table 14: English Language Ability Asian Hispanic or Latino Total Language Ability Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Speak Only English 10,713 1.6% 53,438 8.2% 467,351 71.9% Speak Other Languages: 26,144 4.0% 172,360 26.5% 182,412 28.1% Speak English "Very Well" 14,649 2.3% 79,256 12.2% 86,908 13.4% Speak English "Well" 7,833 1.2% 36,226 5.6% 37,572 5.8% Speak English "Not Well" 3,132 0.5% 31,657 4.9% 32,721 5.0% Speak English "Not at All" 530 0.1% 25,221 3.9% 25,211 3.9% Total* 36,857 5.7% 225,798 34.8% 649,763 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. * This figure represents data from the Census population and housing long form, also known as the "Sample Data" because they are obtained from questions asked of a sample (generally 1-in-6) of persons and housing units. The total population here will not match figures in Table 8.

The group most susceptible to linguistic and cultural isolation in Ventura County is the Indigenous Mexican population. The Indigenous Mexicans in Ventura County come from the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Michoacan, Yucatan, Guerrero, Puebla, and Veracruz. Of the 11 different languages spoken by Indigenous Mexicans in Ventura, the majority of Indigenous Mexicans in Ventura speak Mixteco, Zapateco, Maya, Purepecha, and Otomi. These languages are pre-Columbian and have little or no relation to either English or Spanish. The majority of Indigenous Mexicans in Ventura County are monolingual in their Indigenous language and unable to communicate in either English or Spanish. The linguistic gulf between these Indigenous languages and both English and Spanish is matched by the cultural

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 27

gap between these Indigenous cultures and Ventura’s more dominant Anglo and Mexican/Mestizo cultures. It is estimated that some 17,500 of the Indigenous Mexicans in Ventura are employed in agriculture while thousands more are employed in the various service (car washes, restaurants, hotels, landscaping, etc.) industries. In Ventura County today there are but a handful of service providers who employ Indigenous Mexicans and are capable of providing direct services to the rapidly growing Indigenous Mexican population. According to estimates from the Oxnard Elementary School District and the Ocean View School District, approximately 117 students have designated an Indigenous Mexican language as their primary language.

B. Household Characteristics

A household is defined by the Census as all persons occupying a housing unit. Families are a subset of households and include all persons living together who are related by blood, marriage or adoption. Single households include persons living alone, but do not include persons in group quarters such as convalescent homes or dormitories. “Other” households are unrelated people living together, such as roommates.

Household type and size, income level, the presence of persons with special needs, and other household characteristics may affect access to housing. This section details the various household characteristics that may affect equal access to housing.

1. Household Composition and Size

Household composition and size are often two interrelated factors. Communities that have a large proportion of families with children tend to have a large average household size. Such communities have a greater need for larger units with adequate open space and recreational opportunities for children. The 2000 Census documented 243,234 households in Ventura County. The County's household composition was: 182,959 (75 percent) families; 17,993 (7 percent) elderly persons living alone; 27,938 (12 percent) other single-person households; and 14,344 (6 percent) other households (see Table 15).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 28

Table 15: Household Composition and Size % Single-Person HHs % Total % Elderly Other Average City/Area Other Households Families Living Single HH Size HHs Alone HHs Camarillo 21,438 71.1% 13.6% 10.5% 4.8% 2.62 Fillmore 3,762 80.6% 9.1% 7.0% 3.3% 3.56 Moorpark 8,994 85.6% 2.2% 7.7% 4.5% 3.49 Ojai 3,088 64.3% 13.9% 15.2% 6.6% 2.48 Oxnard 43,576 80.2% 5.6% 9.0% 5.2% 3.85 Port Hueneme 7,268 68.8% 10.3% 13.8% 7.2% 2.86 Santa Paula 8,136 79.1% 9.4% 7.8% 3.8% 3.49 Simi Valley 36,421 79.5% 4.9% 9.8% 5.9% 3.04 Thousand Oaks 41,793 74.6% 7.1% 12.5% 5.8% 2.75 Ventura 38,524 65.5% 9.7% 16.8% 8.0% 2.56 Unincorporated County 30,234 76.9% 5.7% 11.4% 6.1% -- Overall Ventura 243,234 75.2% 7.4% 11.5% 5.9% 3.04 County HHs = Households Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

While family households were the predominant household type across the County, some cities had significantly higher proportions of single-person households (elderly or non- elderly) than others. Single-person households comprised approximately 29 percent of Ojai's total households, the highest proportion in the County. Almost half the portion of these was elderly persons living alone. For the cities of Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Ventura and Port Hueneme, single-person households accounted for more than 20 percent of all households.

The average household size countywide in 2000 was 3.04 persons per household. All jurisdictions had an average household size of more than 2.5 persons per household, and five cities had an average household size over three persons. Average household size ranged from a low of 2.56 persons in Ventura to a high of 3.85 in Oxnard.

According to the American Community Survey data, between 2005 and 2007, 74 percent of Ventura County residents were in family households. Of the County’s family households, 50 percent included children under the age of 18. About 20 percent of the Ventura County residents lived alone and five percent were in other non-family households. The average household size countywide, between 2005 and 2007, was 3.07.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 29

Families with Children

Families with children often face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage, or the landlords have cultural biases against children of opposite sex sharing a bedroom. The proportion of families with dependent children was highest in the cities of Moorpark, Fillmore, Oxnard and Simi Valley, and lowest in the cities of Ventura, Ojai, and Camarillo (see Table 16). Overall, the average household size shown in Table 15 reflects this distribution. The cities of Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Ventura have the highest proportions of female-headed families.

Table 16: Families with Children Female Headed Households All Families with Children Total with Children Jurisdiction Households % of Total % of all Families Number Number Households with Children Camarillo 21,438 7,068 33.0% 999 14.1% Fillmore 3,762 1,722 45.8% 265 15.4% Moorpark 8,994 4,924 54.7% 548 11.1% Ojai 3,088 978 31.7% 217 22.2% Oxnard 43,576 20,106 46.1% 3,493 17.4% Port Hueneme 7,268 2,718 37.4% 618 22.7% Santa Paula 8,136 3,591 44.1% 617 17.2% Simi Valley 36,421 15,481 42.5% 2,142 13.8% Thousand Oaks 41,793 15,574 37.3% 1,964 12.6% Ventura 38,524 12,352 32.1% 2,605 21.1% Unincorporated County 30,234 12,112 40.1% 1,617 13.4% Overall Ventura County 243,234 96,626 39.7% 15,085 15.6% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 30

2. Special Needs Households

Certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, have greater difficulty finding decent and adequate housing. These circumstances may be related to age, family characteristics, or disability. The following discussion highlights particular characteristics that may affect access to housing in a community.

Large Households

Large households are defined as those with five or At the community workshops, more members. These households are usually families residents expressed difficulty in with two or more children or families with extended finding housing for large family members such as in-laws or grandparents. It can households. There is generally a also include multiple families living in one housing lack of understanding regarding unit in order to save on housing costs. occupancy standards and tenant/landlord rights and Families with children, especially those who are responsibilities in this matter. renters, may face discrimination or differential treatment in the housing market. According to interviews with service providers, housing Typical occupancy standard is discrimination against families with children are two persons per bedroom plus typically masked under overcrowding issues. one additional person. Therefore, a two-bedroom unit can typically Overall, 42,000 (17 percent) of the County's accommodate five persons. households had five or more members, representing 16 percent of the owner-households and 20 percent of the renter-households (Table 17). The proportion of large households was highest in the cities of Oxnard (32 percent), Fillmore (30 percent), and Santa Paula (27 percent).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 31

Due to the limited availability of affordable housing, many small households double-up to save on housing costs and tend to opt for renting. The 2000 Census documented 27,975 persons in 11,162 "subfamilies" in Ventura County, indicating a significant number of the County's A restrictive definition of households contained more than one family.5 The “family” in the Zoning Code may higher proportion of large renter-households present potential impediments to compared to large owner-households is reflective of large households in obtaining this trend. (The cities of Ojai, Port Hueneme and housing. Issues related to the Thousand Oaks are the only exceptions, where the definition of “family” are proportion of large renter-households was smaller discussed in Chapter 5 of this AI. than that of the large owner-households.)

According to American Community Survey data, approximately 15 percent of Ventura County households were considered large households between 2005 and 2007.

Table 17: Large Households Large Owner Large Renter Total Large Households City/Area Households Households % of Total % of Owner % of Renter # # # Households Housheolds Households Camarillo 2,313 10.8% 1,573 10.0% 740 13.0% Fillmore 1,105 29.9% 598 26.3% 507 35.7% Moorpark 1,921 21.4% 1,503 20.3% 418 26.6% Ojai 239 7.8% 156 8.8% 83 6.5% Oxnard 13,909 31.9% 7,469 29.9% 6,440 34.5% Port Hueneme 1,204 16.6% 637 17.8% 567 15.3% Santa Paula 2,166 26.6% 998 21.3% 1,168 33.7% Simi Valley 5,460 15.0% 4,181 14.8% 1,279 15.7% Thousand Oaks 4,794 11.5% 3,643 11.5% 1,151 11.2% Ventura 3,963 10.3% 2,251 10.0% 1,712 10.7% Unincorporated 4,926 16.3% 2,987 13.9% 1,939 22.4% County Overall Ventura 42,000 17.3% 25,996 15.8% 16,004 20.3% County Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Of the County’s large households, 38 percent were renters in 2000. Slightly less than one- half of these large renter-households (43 percent) were lower income. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Databook prepared by HUD reports that 78 percent of the County’s large renter-households were suffering from one or more housing problems, including housing overpayment, overcrowding, and/or substandard housing conditions.

5 A subfamily is a married couple with or without children, or a single-parent with one or more never-married children under the age of 18, living with and related to the householder but not including the householder or the householder’s spouse. When grown children move back to the parental home with their children or spouse, they are considered a subfamily. The number of subfamilies is not included in the count of families, since subfamily members are counted as part of the householder's family. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 32

According to the 2000 Census, almost one-half (125,538) of the units in Ventura County had six or more rooms, the size of a typical three-bedroom unit. Considering that 41,474 large households resided in the County, there is an adequate supply of large units in the County to accommodate the needs of larger households (in numeric terms). However, finding affordable housing of adequate size may be a challenging task for many households, particularly lower and moderate renter-households.

Table 18 provides information about the number of large units and large households for each jurisdiction and the County overall. According to this table, all jurisdictions have more large units than large households, which indicates that theoretically, these communities have an adequate supply of large units to meet the housing needs. However, often there is a mismatch between the size of housing and size of households. Typically, most large households are renters while most large housing units are ownership units. Therefore, in communities where renters constitute a significant proportion of total households, overcrowding tends to be an issue. This problem is further exacerbated if the community has a tight supply of large units compared to the number of large households, which is the case with the cities of Fillmore (84.1 percent), Santa Paula (83.7 percent), and Oxnard (82.5 percent).

Table 18: Large Units # of Large Large Households Jurisdiction Large Units* Households as % of Large Units Camarillo 11,717 2,313 19.7 % Fillmore 1,314 1,105 84.1 % Moorpark 6,033 1,921 31.8 % Ojai 1,172 239 20.4 % Oxnard 16,850 13,909 82.5 % Port Hueneme 1,968 1,204 61.2% Santa Paula 2,587 2,166 83.7 % Simi Valley 23,160 5,460 23.6 % Thousand Oaks 27,254 4,794 17.6 % Ventura 16,453 3,963 24.0 % Unincorporated County 17,030 4,926 28.9 % County Total 125,538 42,000 33.5 % *A large unit is defined as a housing unit with six or more rooms. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Single-Parent Households

Single-parent families, particularly female-headed families with children, often require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Because of their relatively lower income and higher living expenses, female-headed families have comparatively limited opportunities for finding affordable and decent housing.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 33

The 2000 Census identified 15.6 percent of households in the County as female-headed households with children (Table 16). The proportion of female-headed households with children in cities varies from a high of 22.7 percent in Port Hueneme to 11.1 percent in Moorpark. According to the American Community Survey data, approximately 18 percent of Ventura County’s family households were female-headed households with children between 2005 and 2007, consistent with the State-wide average. These figures represent an increase from 2000.

Persons with Disabilities

Fair housing choice for persons with disabilities can The State Lanterman be compromised based on the nature of their Developmental Disabilities disability. Persons with physical disabilities may face Services Act requires that State discrimination in the housing market because of the licensed residential care facilities need for wheelchairs, home modifications to improve serving six or fewer persons be accessibility, or other forms of assistance. treated as a regular residential Landlords/owners sometimes fear that a unit may use and therefore permitted by sustain wheelchair damage or may refuse to exempt right where residential uses are disabled tenants with service/guide animals from a permitted. no-pet policy. A major barrier to housing for people with mental disabilities is opposition based on the stigma of mental disability. Landlords often refuse to Recent changes to State law rent to tenants with a history of mental illness. require that each jurisdiction Neighbors may object when a house becomes a group address the provision of home for persons with mental disabilities. transitional and supportive housing in its Zoning Ordinance. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities (lasting For transitional and supportive for a period of six or more months) into the following housing that operates as regular categories: housing, such housing must be permitted where regular housing • Sensory disability: blindness, deafness, or a is otherwise permitted. severe vision or hearing impairment. These topics are discussed in • Mental/Developmental disability: a details in Chapter 5 of this AI. physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to perform activities such as learning, remembering, or concentrating.

• Physical disability: a condition that substantially limits one or more basic physical activities such as walking, climbing stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying.

• Self-care disability: a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to perform certain activities such as dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 34

• Going-outside-the-home disability (also known as mobility disability): a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to go outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s office (tallied only for residents over 16 years of age).

• Employment disability (also known as work disability): a physical, mental, or emotional condition lasting six months or more that makes it difficult to work at a job or business (tallied only for residents between 16 and 64 years of age).

According to the 2000 Census, over 121,600 Ventura County residents over the age of five had sensory, physical, mental, work, transportation, and/or self-care limitations, representing approximately 18 percent of the County's population. The number of persons five years of age and over reported with a disability in the 2000 Census is presented in Table 19. Types of disabilities (sensory, physical, mental, self-care, go-outside-home, and employment) were tallied and summarized based on three age groups: 5 to 15 years, 16 to 64 years, and 65 years and over.

Table 19: Persons with Disabilities City/Area # of Disabled Persons % of Total Population Camarillo 8,400 16.0% Fillmore 2,712 22.3% Moorpark 3,789 13.2% Ojai 1,350 19.3% Oxnard 32,054 20.8% Port Hueneme 4,131 22.5% Santa Paula 5,760 22.2% Simi Valley 16,455 16.0% Thousand Oaks 16,534 15.2% Ventura 16,789 18.1% Unincorporated County 13,674 11.2% County Total 121,648 17.7% Note: The Census documents disability status for persons age 5 and over. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

The type of disability that impacts the highest proportion of the population was mental disability for the age group 5 to 15 years, employment for the age group 16 to 64 years, and physical for the age group 65 years and over. The following further describes the needs of persons with mental, developmental, and physical disabilities in Ventura County.

Persons with Mental Disabilities: Mentally disabled persons are those with psychiatric disabilities that impair their ability to function in the community in varying degrees. Clients served by Ventura County Mental Health Department are typically from very low income households who fall within the defined target population – people with severe mental disorders and multiple problems.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 35

Many mentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment in which partial or constant supervision is provided by trained personnel within a family-like environment. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment in which medical attention and therapy are provided within the living environment.

Ventura County Behavioral Health Department (BHD) includes Mental Health Services and Alcohol and Drug programs. BHD faces an urgent crisis as a result of the unavailability of supported housing (e.g. “beds”) for persons with mental illness who no longer require acute care. The lack of beds in the system has significant clinical and fiscal impacts for individual patients and the department as a whole.

The current housing stock available for mentally ill clients served by the BHD consists of a variety of living environments with varying degrees of staff support and services. The current bed stock ranges from shelter with minimal specialized support to highly supported environments. Several facilities in the County provide both independent living options and residential care for persons with serious mental illness. The County’s residents also have access to a number of programs that specifically assist persons with mental and severe mental illness, including:

• Children’s Full Service Partnership: This program serves children and youth 9-17 years of age who have been identified as having a high risk for severe emotional disturbance (SED) and have been referred to the juvenile justice system.

• Children’s Intensive Response Team (CIRT): This program serves children/youth experiencing a mental health crisis and their families by providing immediate intensive mental health response services to children/youth up to 18 years of age throughout the County.

• Transitional Age Youth Full Service Partnership: This program serves transitional age youth (TAY), ages 18-25 who are dually diagnosed with a serious mental illness (SMI).

• Transitional Age Youth Wellness & Recovery Center: This program serves TAY, ages 18 to 25 years old, who are recovering from mental illness or mental illness and substance abuse.

• Adult Full Service Partnership: This program serves 30 individuals annually who are diagnosed with a serious and persistent mental illness, are leaving or at risk of incarceration, and are at risk of homelessness or hospitalization.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 36

• Adult Mobile Crisis Response (Adult Intensive Response and Stabilization Team): This program provides services to all adults in need of community-based crisis response services 24/7/365 throughout Ventura County. This is for individuals currently receiving mental health services, or those who are unserved within the community.

• Short Term Social Rehabilitation Program: This program will provide short term, voluntary residential services, as an alternative to hospitalization for individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.

• Adult Wellness & Recovery Center: This Center serves adults with serious mental illness (SMI) throughout Ventura County.

• Older Adult Full Service Partnership: This program provides services to consumers 60 years of age and older who, due to a serious mental illness (SMI), have a reduction in personal or community functioning, and are best served in the public specialty mental health system.

• Fillmore Community Project: This program serves youth and families of youth 0-17 who have been identified as having a mental health and/or substance disorder with a significant impairment in functioning/development or a probability of significant impairment if not provided services.

• Children and Family Stabilization Program-Family Access Support Team (FAST): This program is designed to support families in identifying strategies to address the challenges of severely emotionally disturbed (SED).

• Empowering Partners through Integrative Community Services (EPICS): This program serves adults (18 and over) with serious and persistent mental illness.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities: The term developmental disability refers to a severe and chronic disability that is attributable to a mental or physical impairment that began before the age of 18, expected to continue indefinitely, and present a substantial disability. Also, the disability must be due to one of the following conditions: mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and a disabling condition closely related to mental retardation or requiring similar treatment. On a national average, three percent of the population has some form of developmental disability.

The Association for Retarded Citizens Ventura County, Inc. (ARC) provides educational, vocational, and residential services for people with developmental disabilities. ARC provides a variety of programs throughout Ventura County. ARC operates several types of residential services, one of which is the Training for Independent Living (TIL) program. TIL is a transitional living program, located in Simi Valley and Ventura, which emphasizes independent living skills and effective decision making. Upon completion of the areas of

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 37

training, graduates receive assistance in securing and setting up their own homes in Ventura County.

ARC also owns and operates two well-appointed Residential Care Homes in the City of Ojai. These homes offer a supportive setting, promoting independence, dignity, personal choice, and community inclusion. A wide range of professional services are provided based on individual need.

Persons with Physical Disabilities: The Beyond ADA accessibility characteristics of this group include those individuals requirements, the concept of with any physical impairment, particularly those who “visitability” is a growing trend have experienced the recent trauma of limb removal nationwide. The term refers to or those who have recently become more seriously homes designed in such a way impaired. Others include persons with very disabling that it can be lived in or visited by chronic diseases. people who have trouble with

steps or who use wheelchairs or Persons with physical, mental, and developmental walkers. disabilities often require special housing to accommodate their special conditions. For many who are physically disabled, features such as hand rails, ramps, wider doorways, specially designed cabinetry and electrical outlets, special door and faucet handles, and non-skid flooring are necessary.

Pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, each Area Housing Authority is required to conduct an assessment of its public housing stock for handicap accessibility. Section 504 requires five percent of the units in a public housing project be accessible to the mobility impaired and two percent of the units be accessible to the visually/hearing impaired. On an ongoing basis, the area housing authorities utilize funding from the HUD Comprehensive Grant Program to complete the required modifications in compliance with ADA. The Area Housing Authority of Ventura County, the Oxnard Housing Authority, and the Housing Authority of the City of Ventura are compliant with Section 504. [Awaiting response from the Housing Authority of Port Hueneme regarding status of public housing stock.]

Persons with HIV/AIDS

Persons with HIV/AIDS face an array of barriers to obtaining and maintaining affordable, stable housing. For persons living with HIV/AIDS, access to safe, affordable housing is as important to their general health and well-being as access to quality health care. For many, the persistent shortage of stable housing can be the primary barrier to consistent medical care and treatment. In addition, persons with HIV/AIDS may also be targets of hate crimes, which are discussed later in this document. Despite federal and state anti-discrimination laws, many people face illegal eviction from their homes when their illness is exposed. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, which is primarily enforced by HUD, prohibits housing discrimination against persons with disabilities, including persons with HIV/AIDS.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 38

The Ventura County Public Health Department estimated that as of December 2007, there were a total of 1,055 individuals living with AIDS in Ventura County. An additional 364 persons in Ventura County are believed to be infected with the HIV virus.

The Ventura County Public Health HIV/AIDS Center provides special programs for persons living with HIV/AIDS. The Center provides professional, confidential and culturally sensitive services for men, women and children in English and Spanish. The Center also provides HIV/AIDS education and prevention information for juveniles, including those in county correctional facilities and alternative schools, and migrant farm and service workers. The following are some of the specific services provided by the Center:

• AIDS Nurse Case Management • AIDS Medication Assistance • HIV/AIDS Anonymous Testing and Screening • Partner Notification Services • Early Intervention Program • HIV/AIDS Education and Prevention • Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP) • Court Mandated HIV/AIDS Education

Emergency rental assistance is available through federally distributed HOPWA funds. The County has also been awarded additional funds targeting emergency housing needs of dual- diagnosed patients from the Ventura AIDS Partnership. While housing is an ongoing need and concern for all AIDS clients, it is especially difficult to obtain stable housing conditions for patients with dual-diagnoses for whom housing is generally more expensive. The HIV/AIDS Management Program is enrolled in the State HIPP program which assists with payment of insurance premiums, thus enabling patients to keep their private insurance. In addition, the Public Health Department receives funding for providing emergency housing in hotels/motels, helping pay utilities, and supporting the RAIN program located in Camarillo which provides homeless transitional housing.

The Ventura County AIDS Partnership (VCAP) was formed in 1995 as a local response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The mission of the Partnership is to strengthen the County’s response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by raising and allocating funds specifically to fill the unmet needs in HIV prevention and AIDS care services in Ventura County. VCAP is one of 29 community partners of the National AIDS Fund (NAF). NAF provides challenge grant matching funds so that every $2 raised locally is eligible to be matched with $1. Since its inception, VCAP has given over $1,125,000 to Ventura County agencies for HIV prevention efforts and AIDS care services. VCAP’s role in the community is evolving from being a grant maker to also including programmatic activities such as the HIV/AIDS Latino Taskforce. The Taskforce is a countywide collaboration consisting of leaders from the agricultural, business, public health, and non-profit sectors, the school system and other key stakeholders. This project is educating local Latino leaders in community organization and advocacy in an effort to prevent HIV infection.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 39

The Ventura County Board of Supervisors adopted an Ordinance #3981 in 1991 to prohibit discrimination against anyone who has, or is thought to have, a life-threatening or communicable disease.

Homeless Persons

According to HUD, a person is considered homeless if they are not imprisoned and 1) lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence 2) their primary nighttime residence is a publicly or privately operated shelter designed for temporary living arrangements, an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals that should otherwise be institutionalized; or 3) a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation.

Homeless persons often have a difficult time finding housing once they have moved from a transitional housing or other assistance program. Housing affordability for those who are or were formerly homeless is challenging from an economics standpoint, and this demographic group may encounter fair housing issues when landlords refuse to rent to formerly homeless persons. Under California laws, a landlord can deny rental to an applicant based on credit history, employment history, and rental history. However, the perception may be that homeless persons are economically (and sometimes mentally) unstable.

Assessing a region’s homeless population is difficult because of the transient nature of the population. The Ventura County Homeless and Housing Coalition (VCHHC) has functioned as the lead planning entity for homeless assistance in the County of Ventura since 1991. It is a non-profit organization whose mission is to develop and maintain a county-wide cooperative effort to address the needs of homeless individuals and families, those at risk of becoming homeless, and those in need of low income housing. According to the 2010 VCHHC homeless count, there are approximately 1,815 homeless adults and children in the County of Ventura on a given day. The number of persons who are homeless over the course of a year, however, is higher. Local, regional, and national data suggests that it is three to four times higher than the number of persons homeless on a given day.

The majority of the region’s homeless are clustered in just two cities, Oxnard and Ventura. However, a sizeable number of homeless persons also make their temporary residence in Simi Valley and the unincorporated areas of Ventura County (Table 20). In 2007, the County completed a 10-Year Strategy to End Homelessness for Ventura County. The strategy included recommendations by a Working Group comprised of representatives from public and private agencies that met at least once a month over an 18-month period. The Working Group recommended that 300 units of permanent affordable housing be developed regionally for extremely-low and very-low income families and individuals, about two-thirds of which should be for individuals that could benefit from single-room occupancy (SRO) housing and the other one-third would be for families in need of multiple bedroom units. The Working Group also recommended that at least 275 units or beds of permanent supportive housing be available for chronic homeless persons in order to reduce chronic homelessness by half by 2012.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 40

Table 20: Homeless Population by Jurisdiction (2010) Age Gender Race/Ethnicity Number of Non- Black or Jurisdiction % of County Youth Senior Hispanic Persons Male Female Hispanic African Other (18-24) (62+) or Latino White American Camarillo 15 0.8%0% 7% 73% 27% 67% 26% 7% 0% Fillmore 5 0.3%0% 0% 60% 40% 20% 80% 0% 0% Moorpark 1 0.1%0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Ojai 52 2.9%2% 8% 80% 20% 60% 32% 4% 4% Oxnard 520 28.7%12% 6% 66% 34% 31% 51% 9% 9% Port Hueneme 9 0.5% 0% 11% 67% 33% 33% 45% 11% 11% Santa Paula 54 3.0% 2% 2% 67% 33% 15% 85% 0% 0% Simi Valley 229 12.6% 11% 6% 71% 29% 60% 32% 2% 6% Thousand Oaks 106 5.8% 4% 1% 70% 30% 66% 23% 5% 6% Ventura 601 33.1%6% 4% 73% 27% 68% 21% 4% 7% Unincorporated County 223 12.3% 3% 0% 41% 59% 43% 45% 12% 0% County Total 1,815 100.0% Source: Ventura County Homeless and Housing Coalition, Homeless County, 2010.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 41

Farm Workers

As traditionally defined, farm workers are persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm workers tend to work in fields or processing plants. During harvest periods when workloads increase, the need to supplement the permanent labor force is satisfied with seasonal workers. Often these seasonal workers are migrant workers, defined by the inability to return to their primary residence at the end of the workday. The agricultural workforce in Ventura County does many jobs, including weeding, thinning, planting, pruning, irrigation, tractor work, pesticide applications, harvesting, transportation to the cooler or market, and a variety of jobs at packing and processing facilities. It is therefore difficult to estimate the number of farm workers residing in the County.

The 2000 Census documented a total of 10,869 Ventura County residents employed in the farming, forestry, and fishing occupations, representing approximately three percent of the County’s employed population age 16 or older. In 2006, SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment estimated that there were 14,257 farm workers countywide in Ventura County. The most significant concentration of farm workers is in Oxnard, with 63 percent of the County's farm workers residing there. Another concentration of farm workers, though trailing significantly behind Oxnard, occurs in the unincorporated County. Approximately 12 percent of farm workers in the region reside in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County. The Census estimate of farm workers often excludes the seasonal, migrant workers, as well as those who are undocumented.

Table 21: Farm Worker Population of Ventura County Total Percent of Population Employed Percent of # of Farm Jurisdiction (Employed Population that County’s Farm Workers and 16+ are Farm Workers years) Workers Camarillo 154 26,484 0.6% 1.4% Fillmore 190 5,259 3.6% 1.7% Moorpark 165 15,091 1.1% 1.5% Ojai 16 3,337 0.5% 0.2% Oxnard 6,879 70,395 9.8% 63.3% Port Hueneme 255 8,705 2.9% 2.3% Santa Paula 1,291 11,213 11.5% 11.9% Simi Valley 98 57,001 0.2% 0.9% Thousand Oaks 87 59,051 0.1% 0.8% Ventura 412 49,791 0.8% 3.8% Unincorporated County 1,322 42,011 22.7% 12.2% Overall Ventura County 10,869 348,338 3.1% 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Farm workers are classified as “direct hire” when they are employed directly by the farmer. In Ventura County, most farm workers are direct hire although farm labor contractors also employ substantial numbers. A “migrant agricultural worker” is defined legally as “an

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 42

individual who is employed in agricultural employment of a seasonal or other temporary nature, and who is required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence.” A “seasonal agricultural worker” does the same work but is not required to be absent overnight from his permanent place of residence. A full-time agricultural worker generally does what a seasonal worker does but is employed year-round. Because of the stability of agricultural production throughout the year in Ventura County, approximately two thirds of the County’s farm workers are seasonal or year-round (full-time) workers, as opposed to migrant workers.6

While the estimates of the number of farm workers California Employee Housing Act may vary, there is consensus that most are low-income requires that housing for six or or extremely low-income employees, and all need fewer employees be treated as a affordable, decent housing. The mean wage for farm regular residential use. The workers in Ventura County was $18,661 in 2008, Employee Housing Act further according to the Employment Development defines housing for agricultural Department. According to a study in 2002, housing workers consisting of 36 beds or accommodations for farm workers, both 12 units be treated as an unaccompanied workers and those with families, agricultural use and permitted range from houses, apartments, trailers, motels, and where agricultural uses are garage conversions.7 The City of Oxnard observes permitted. This topic is also that many farm workers are stable residents of the discussed later in Chapter 5 of community; many reside in the 22 mobile home parks this AI. in the City.

According to the California Employee Housing Act, housing for six or fewer employees should be treated as a regular residential use. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted. There are a few affordable housing developments dedicated to farm worker use: Cabrillo Village in the City of Ventura (Saticoy) housing 160 families, and Rancho Sespe in an unincorporated area near Piru, housing 100 families. In addition, some unaccompanied workers are housed in long-established privately run farm labor camps: El Campo de Piru (capacity 165 beds), Villasenor in Fillmore (170 beds), Tres S in Oxnard (150 beds) and Garden City in Oxnard (45 beds).

6 Farm Worker Housing: A Crisis Calling for Community Action, Ventura County Ag Futures Alliance, 2002. 7 Farm Worker Housing: A Crisis Calling for Community Action, Ventura County Ag Futures Alliance, 2002. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 43

In addition to the affordable housing developments described above, the County of Ventura also has a number of state-licensed farm worker camps:

• B-Camp (2512 Balboa Street, Oxnard): 15 units • Garden City Camp (5690 Cypress Road, Oxnard): 40 beds • La Campana (2297 Sycamore, Fillmore): 18 units • Fillmore Labor Camp (743 ½ Sespe Place, Fillmore): 137 beds • McKevett (Padre Drive, Santa Paula): 9 units • Limol (1141 Cummings, Santa Paula): 157 units • Orchard Farm (Santa Paula): 11 units • Leavens Ranches (12681 Broadway Road, Moorpark): 14 units • Los Posas Orchards (5242 N. Olive Hill Road, Somis): 16 units • Rancho Guadalasca (1 Caryl Drive, Oxnard): 9 units • Newhall Ranch (4 ½ miles east of Piru): 18 units • Rancho Media Dia (1989 Hondo Rancho Road, Somis): 10 units • Somis Nursery (5612 Donlon Road, Somis): 10 units • Piru Square (665 Piru Square): 6 units

C. Income Profile

Household income is the most important factor determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic life necessities. Regular income is the means by which most individuals and families finance current consumption and make provision for the future through saving and investment. The level of cash income can be used as an indicator of the standard of living for most of the population. While economic factors that affect a household’s housing choice are not a fair housing issue per se, the relationships among household income, household type, race/ethnicity, and other factors often create misconceptions and biases that raise fair housing concerns.

HUD has established the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) for the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA):

• Extremely Low Income (0-30 percent of AMI) • Low Income (31-50 percent of AMI) • Moderate Income (51-80 percent of AMI) • Middle/Upper Income (above 80 percent of AMI)

Collectively, extremely low and low incomes are referred to as "lower" income.

Ventura County has one of the highest Median Family Incomes in the state and the nation; within California, only Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties have higher median incomes. Income distribution by jurisdiction is tabulated

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 44

in Table 22. This income distribution is based on data provided by HUD for preparation of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) and Consolidated Plan.

Table 22: Income Distribution % % % % Total Middle/ City/Area Extremely Low Moderate Households Upper Low Income Income Income Income Camarillo 21,472 8.3% 9.3% 13.7% 68.6% Fillmore 3,749 18.3% 17.6% 20.6% 43.5% Moorpark 8,958 6.3% 7.1% 12.7% 73.8% Ojai 3,059 15.3% 11.0% 20.3% 53.4% Oxnard 43,576 14.7% 14.6% 21.6% 49.1% Port Hueneme 7,253 14.8% 17.6% 21.7% 45.9% Santa Paula 8,111 19.4% 17.9% 20.7% 42.1% Simi Valley 36,439 6.4% 6.7% 12.7% 74.2% Thousand Oaks 41,746 6.4% 6.9% 11.6% 75.2% Ventura 38,523 11.8% 11.3% 16.8% 60.1% Unincorporated County 30,294 9.3% 9.6% 13.5% 67.7% Overall Ventura County 243,180 10.3% 10.4% 15.7% 63.5% Note: The HUD CHAS Data provides income distribution by HUD income categories for cities above 25,000 in population. These distributions are developed based on specific Census data and income limits adjusted for household size. Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2000.

Table 22 indicates that Santa Paula (57.9 percent), Fillmore (56.5 percent), Port Hueneme (54.1 percent), and Oxnard (50.9 percent) had the highest proportions of lower income households in the County. A detailed breakdown of income distribution by race/ethnicity and for other protected classes by jurisdiction can be found in Appendix D.

Although aggregate information on income levels is useful for looking at trends over time or comparing income levels for different jurisdictions, income levels may also vary significantly by household type, size, and race/ethnicity. Different households can have very different housing needs as well as housing choices available to them.

Income often varies by household type (elderly, small, and large families). The majority of households in Ventura County earned middle and upper incomes in 1999. However, 21 percent of the households are considered lower and moderate income, earning less than 80 percent of AMI. Among the household types, elderly and “other” households had the highest proportion of extremely low income households, at 18 percent and 12 percent, respectively. (“Other” households include non-family households such as single persons living alone or unrelated individuals living together.) In addition, approximately 53 percent of elderly households earned less than 80 percent AMI, largely due to the predominance of fixed incomes among the elderly. Because lower income households have less income for housing, tradeoffs in expenditures to afford other living essentials may result in overpayment and/or overcrowding in housing units.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 45

Table 23: Income by Household Type Income Group (% of AMI) Extremely Low Above Household Type Moderate Low (31- Moderate Total (51-80%) (0-30%) 50%) (81%+) Elderly (62+ years) 8,669 7,746 8,967 22,212 47,594 Small Family (2-4 7,675 8,390 15,200 85,634 116,899 persons) Large Family (5+ persons) 4,300 5,905 7,824 23,510 41,539 Other 4,355 3,359 6,294 23,140 37,148 Total 24,999 25,400 38,285 154,496 243,180 Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2000.

Race/ethnicity is also a characteristic that often is related to housing need. This is because different race/ethnic groups may earn different incomes. Overall, low and moderate income households comprised 37 percent of all households in Ventura County in 2000. However, certain groups had higher proportions of low and moderate income households. Specifically, Hispanic (56 percent) and Black (42 percent) households had a considerably higher percentage of low and moderate income households than the rest of the County (Table 24). Proportionally fewer Non-Hispanic White households (30 percent) fell in the low and moderate income category compared to the County average.

Table 24: Income by Race/Ethnicity Black or Non-Hispanic Hispanic or African Asian Income Total White Latino Level HHs American HHs Percent HHs Percent HHs Percent HHs Percent Extremely Low 24,999 13,530 8.1% 9,130 16.9% 659 14.4% 940 8.7% Low 25,400 14,155 8.4% 9,565 17.7% 501 10.9% 620 5.7% Moderate 38,285 23,400 13.9% 11,775 21.8% 770 16.8% 1,320 12.2% Middle/Upper 154,496 116,890 69.6% 23,520 43.6% 2,655 57.9% 7,975 73.5% Total Households 243,180 167,975 100.0% 53,990 100.0% 4,585 100.0% 10,855 100.0% Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2000. HHs = Households Note: 1. Due to rounding, CHAS special tabulation data household totals differ slightly from census totals. 2. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, CHAS data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 3. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 46

Figure 2 illustrates the Low and Moderate Income areas in the County by Census block group. Typically, HUD defines a Low and Moderate Income area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is Low and Moderate Income. However, certain communities are higher income, with few block groups qualifying as low and moderate income using this definition. These communities are considered “exception” jurisdictions. The cities of Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks are identified by HUD as "exception" jurisdictions, where their Low and Moderate Income thresholds are not set at 51 percent. Low and moderate income areas in these communities are defined as the top 25 percent (fourth quartile) of block groups with the highest concentration of low and moderate income population.

Low and Moderate Income thresholds for these "exception" jurisdictions are:

• City of Camarillo : 42.7 percent • City of Simi Valley: 39.5 percent • City of Thousand Oaks: 29.4 percent

As shown in Figure 2, a significant number of block groups in Santa Paula, Ventura, Fillmore, Oxnard and Port Hueneme are identified as Low and Moderate Income areas.

The concentrations of Low and Moderate Income population shown in Figure 2 can be compared with the concentrations of minority households shown previously in Figure 1. Generally, areas identified as Low and Moderate Income in the cities of Oxnard and Santa Paula also contain high concentrations of minority households. This correlation between low income and minority population is not as apparent in other communities.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 47

Figure 2: Low Mod Income Areas in Ventura County Figure 2: Low

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 48

D. Housing Profile

A discussion of fair housing choice must be preceded by an assessment of the housing market being analyzed. This section provides an overview of the characteristics of the local and regional housing markets. The Census Bureau defines a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or, if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and which have direct access from outside the building or through a common hall.

1. Housing Growth

The Ventura County housing stock increased by about 10 percent from 2000 to 2009 (Table 25). Among the various jurisdictions in the County, the three cities with the greatest housing growth were Moorpark (17.6 percent), Fillmore (16.8 percent), and Oxnard (15.5 percent). The City of Oxnard alone added nearly 11,000 housing units to its housing stock during this period. The three jurisdictions with the slowest housing growth were Port Hueneme (2.7 percent), Santa Paula (3.2 percent) and unincorporated Ventura County (4.4 percent).

Table 25: Housing Growth 1990-2000 % 2000-2009 City/Area 1990 2000 2009 Change % Change Camarillo 18,731 21,931 25,109 17.1% 14.5% Fillmore 3,521 3,778 4,411 7.3% 16.8% Moorpark 7,915 9,096 10,701 14.9% 17.6% Ojai 3,130 3,197 3,343 2.1% 4.6% Oxnard 41,280 45,183 52,185 9.5% 15.5% Port Hueneme 7,481 7,911 8,122 5.7% 2.7% Santa Paula 8,062 8,374 8,644 3.9% 3.2% Simi Valley 33,111 37,330 42,010 12.7% 12.5% Thousand Oaks 37,765 42,928 47,119 13.7% 9.8% Ventura 37,343 39,828 42,688 6.7% 7.2% Unincorporated County 30,139 32,156 33,563 6.7% 4.4% County 228,478 251,712 277,895 10.2% 10.4% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000. Department of Finance, 2009.

2. Housing Condition

Assessing housing conditions in the County can provide the basis for developing policies and programs to maintain and preserve the quality of the housing stock. Housing age can indicate general housing conditions within a community. Housing is subject to gradual deterioration over time. Deteriorating housing can depress neighboring property values, discourage reinvestment, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood.

As shown in Table 26, nearly 68 percent of Ventura County housing stock was over 30 years of age in 2000. The cities of Ojai, Santa Paula, and Ventura have the largest proportions of Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 49

housing units potentially in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility issues. Furthermore, housing units constructed prior to 1974 are likely to contain lead-based paint. As shown in Table 27, the majority of the lead poisoning cases occurred in the City of Oxnard.

Table 26: Age of Housing Stock (2000) Units 30+ % 30+ Units 40+ % 40+ City/Area years years years years Camarillo 13,406 61.1 % 5,520 25.2 % Fillmore 2,730 72.2 % 1,782 47.2 % Moorpark 2,447 26.9 % 882 9.6 % Ojai 2,730 85.4 % 2,050 64.1 % Oxnard 33,111 73.3 % 20,467 45.3 % Port Hueneme 6,045 76.4 % 3,562 45.0 % Santa Paula 6,660 79.5 % 5,002 59.7 % Simi Valley 22,343 55.9 % 13,760 36.9 % Thousand Oaks 28,031 65.3 % 12,093 28.2 % Ventura 30,746 77.2 % 21,350 53.6 % Unincorporated County 21,585 67.1 % 15,932 49.5 % Overall Ventura County 169,834 67.5 % 102,400 40.7 % Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

Table 27: Child Lead Poisoning Cases (2009) Total State Total State Total Local Total Local Cases Open Cases Cases Open Cases Jurisdiction (15+ mg/dL) Confirmed (5-14 mg/dL) Confirmed Camarillo 0 0 12 12 Fillmore/Piru 0 0 3 2 Moorpark 1 0 4 4 Ojai/Oakview 1 1 0 0 Oxnard 5 1 108 108 Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 Santa Paula 4 4 23 22 Simi Valley 1 0 3 0 Thousand Oaks 0 0 10 9 Ventura City 0 0 22 22 Overall Ventura County 12 6 185 179 Source: Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP), County of Ventura, 2009. Notes: 1. No 2009 cases required Chelation (or medical therapy for heavy metal poisoning). According to the County of Ventura Public Health Department, the most common causes of lead poisoning in children involve candy, followed by lead in the soil due to gasoline, and paint chips/dust. 2. State cases are a subset of Local cases. Whether a State case is opened depends on the severity of the lead poisoning. Severe cases (15+mg/dL) get opened at the State level, as well as the Local level.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 50

3. Tenure

Tenure in the housing industry typically refers to the occupancy of a housing unit – whether the unit is owner occupied or occupied rental unit. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income, composition, and ages of the household members; and housing cost burden is generally more prevalent among renters than among owners. However, the extremely high costs of home ownership in Southern California also create high levels of housing cost burden among owners. The tenure distribution (owner versus renter) of a community’s housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential mobility is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing evidencing a much lower turnover rate than rental housing.

Ventura County showed a higher proportion of owner-occupied housing (67.6 percent) than renter-occupied housing (32.4 percent). Most cities in the County had more owner-occupied housing units than renter-occupied units. Outliers include Thousand Oaks, where home ownership overwhelmingly predominated (97.3 percent) and Port Hueneme, where just under one-half of the housing stock was owner-occupied. In addition to Thousand Oaks, the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, and Simi Valley had particularly high proportions of owner- households compared to other communities in the County (Table 28).

Table 28: Housing Tenure Vacancy Vacancy Percent Percent Total Vacant City/Area Rate Rate Owner- Renter- Units Units (2000) (2009) Occupied Occupied Camarillo 21,438 508 2.4% 8.0% 73.5% 26.5% Fillmore 3,762 90 2.4% 5.4% 63.2% 36.8% Moorpark 8,994 100 1.1% 7.7% 82.1% 17.9% Ojai 3,088 141 4.6% n/a 58.4% 41.6% Oxnard 43,576 1,590 3.6% 6.3% 57.3% 42.7% Port Hueneme 7,268 640 8.8% n/a 49.1% 50.9% Santa Paula 8,136 205 2.5% 3.1% 57.7% 42.3% Simi Valley 36,421 851 2.3% 4.2% 77.6% 22.4% Thousand Oaks 42,958 1,165 2.7% 5.6% 97.3% 2.7% Ventura 38,524 1,279 3.3% n/a 58.7% 41.3% Unincorporated County 29,069 1,909 6.6% n/a 70.9% 29.1% County Total 243,234 8,478 3.5% n/a 67.6% 32.4% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000; Rent Survey Dyer-Sheehan Group, July, 2009.

Residential vacancy rates are a good indicator of how well the current supply of housing is meeting the demand for various types of units. A certain number of vacant housing units are needed in any community to moderate the cost of housing, allow for sufficient housing choices, and provide an incentive for landlords and owners to maintain their housing. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has identified optimal vacancy rates of five percent for rental housing and two percent for ownership units. According to Census data from 2000, the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Santa Paula, Simi

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 51

Valley and Thousand Oaks all had overall vacancy rates of less than three percent (Table 28). By 2009, however, none of the jurisdictions in the County had a vacancy rate of less than three percent. The cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme, and Thousand Oaks also had a number of units that are seasonally vacant recreation and vacation homes not available for rent.

A substantial income disparity exists between owner- and renter-households. Table 29 indicates that this disparity still exists and illustrates the heavy concentration of lower income renter-households compared to owner-households.

Table 29: Tenure by Income Tenure 0-30% MFI 31-50% MFI 51-80% MFI 81+% MFI Renters 19.2% 17.0% 21.0% 42.7% Owners 6.0% 7.3% 13.2% 73.5% Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2004.

4. Housing Type

A region’s housing stock is comprised of three categories: single-family dwelling units, multi-family dwelling units, and other types of units such as mobile homes.

Few changes have occurred within the composition of the housing stock in Ventura County over the past two decades. Single-family detached units continue to comprise the majority of the housing stock, with the proportion of these homes remaining stable at about 63 percent (Table 30). Correspondingly, the proportion of multi-family housing in the community has remained stable at about 21 percent since 1990.

Table 30: Housing Stock Mix 1990 2000 2009 Housing Type # of % of # of % of # of % of Units Total Units Total Units Total Single-Family Detached 142,782 62.5% 170,942 64.6% 177,354 63.8% Single-Family Attached 24,630 10.8% 27,456 10.4% 28,156 10.1% Total Single-Family Units 167,412 73.3% 198,398 75.0% 205,510 74.0% Multi-Family (2-4 Units) 14,079 6.2% 16,613 6.3% 17,433 6.3% Multi-Family (5+ Units) 34,786 15.2% 37,308 14.4% 42,603 15.3% Total Multi-Family Units 48,865 21.4% 53,921 20.4% 60,036 21.6% Mobile Homes 12,201 5.3% 12,264 4.6% 12,349 4.4% Total Units 228,478 100.0% 264,583 100.0% 277,895 100.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000; Department of Finance, 2009.

Single-family units are attached or detached dwelling units usually on individual lots of land. Cities often have zones that specify the provision of single-family housing units with maximum densities. As shown in Table 31, 74 percent of the total housing units in the County are single-family dwellings. Housing type varies somewhat by jurisdiction, however. Unincorporated Ventura County and the cities of Moorpark and Simi Valley have a larger

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 52

proportion of single-family dwellings (over 80 percent), while the cities of Port Hueneme, Ventura, and Oxnard have a much lower proportion (65 percent or less).

Multi-family units consist of structures with two or more units. Generally, multi-family units (particularly with five or more units in a structure) are rental units along the lines of those found in a common apartment complex. Land zoned for multi-family dwelling units usually allows medium- to high-density use of land. Multi-family dwelling units comprise 22 percent of the County’s housing stock. The cities of Port Hueneme, Ventura, and Oxnard have the greatest proportions of multi-family housing units, while unincorporated Ventura County and the cities of Moorpark and Fillmore have the lowest proportions.

Typically, a community’s housing stock correlates highly with the tenure distribution of the occupied housing units. For instance, Port Hueneme and Ventura have high proportions of multi-family housing and high proportions of renter-households, relative to all other Ventura County jurisdictions. In comparison, Moorpark has one of the lowest proportions of multi- family housing and one of the lowest proportions of renter-households.

Table 31: Housing Type and Vacancy Single-Family Multi-Family Mobile Percent 5+ Detached AttachedTotal 2-4 units Total Homes Vacant units Camarillo 59.2% 17.9%77.2% 4.0% 14.7% 18.6% 4.2%2.87 Fillmore 72.3% 6.4%78.6% 5.5% 8.4% 14.0% 7.4%2.31 Moorpark 71.6% 11.8%83.4% 2.7% 11.1% 13.8% 2.8%1.10 Ojai 68.4% 8.7%77.1% 9.1% 13.5% 22.6% 0.2%4.31 Oxnard 56.4% 8.9%65.3% 8.7% 20.3% 29.1% 5.6%3.52 Port Hueneme 30.7% 27.1% 57.9% 14.8% 26.9% 41.6% 0.5% 8.43 Santa Paula 58.8% 8.9% 67.7% 9.2% 14.0% 23.2% 9.1% 2.45 Simi Valley 73.1% 7.5% 80.6% 4.1% 13.3% 17.3% 2.1% 2.29 Thousand Oaks 66.6% 11.2% 77.8% 3.9% 16.0% 19.9% 2.3% 2.71 Ventura 55.2% 8.0%63.3% 10.5% 20.1% 30.6% 6.1%3.21 Unincorporated County 79.4% 7.1% 86.5% 3.0% 3.6% 6.6% 6.8% 6.03 County Total 63.8% 10.1% 74.0% 6.3% 15.3% 21.6% 4.4% 3.40 Source: California Department of Finance Housing and Population Estimates, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 53

E. Housing Cost and Affordability

Housing problems directly relate to the cost of Housing affordability alone is not housing in a community. If housing costs are necessarily a fair housing issue. relatively high in comparison to household income, a Fair housing concerns may arise correspondingly high prevalence of housing cost only when housing affordability burden and overcrowding occurs. This section interacts with other factors evaluates the affordability of the housing stock in the covered under the fair housing County to low and moderate income households. laws, such as household type, composition, and race/ethnicity. 1. Ownership Housing Costs

The California Association of Realtors (CAR) calculates a housing affordability index which measures the percentage of households that can afford to purchase a median-priced home in California. According to the June 2009 CAR Affordability Index, approximately 41 percent of households in Ventura County could afford to purchase a median priced home.

Table 32 displays median home prices for each jurisdiction in Ventura County. In September 2009, the median sales price for homes in Ventura County was $419,000, an increase of about four percent from 2008. Home prices vary by jurisdiction, with median prices in Fillmore (-26 percent), Thousand Oaks (+21 percent), and Moorpark (+21 percent) fluctuating the most between 2008 and 2009.

Table 32: Home Prices in Ventura County Median Prices Percent Change Jurisdiction 2007 2008 2009* 2007-2008 2008-2009 Camarillo $540,500 $450,000 $451,000 -16.7% 0.2% Fillmore $481,000 $310,000 $230,000 -35.6% -25.8% Moorpark $699,000 $489,000 $591,000 -30.0% 20.9% Ojai $649,750 $525,000 $456,000 -19.2% -13.1% Oxnard $525,000 $330,000 $312,000 -37.1% -5.5% Port Hueneme $378,750 $261,250 $280,000 -31.0% 7.2% Santa Paula $464,500 $280,000 $285,000 -39.7% 1.8% Simi Valley $550,000 $419,000 $414,000 -23.8% -1.2% Thousand Oaks $655,000 $525,550 $639,000 -19.8% 21.6% Ventura $535,000 $410,000 $383,000 -23.4% -6.6% Unincorporated County $686,295 $600,183 $647,000 -12.5% 7.8% County $569,000 $405,000 $419,000 -28.8% 3.5% Source: DQNews, 2009. * = Reflects median sales price from September 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 54

2. Rental Housing Costs

Apartment rents in Ventura County have been decreasing over the past two years due to the economy and increased inventory. Vacancy rates have increased from the normal three- percent range to five and a quarter percent in 2010, according to the latest rent survey conducted by the Dyer Sheehan Group. Although there has been an increase in multi-family housing construction through 2008, the demand for multi-family housing continues to outpace supply. Current socio-economic conditions have made it increasingly difficult to develop affordable multi-family units. The credit market is a major part of this, especially in the area of Tax Credit Financing. Economic indicators point to a recovery of the Tax Credit market in 2011. The shortage of affordable multi-family units, combined with economic and political conditions that favor single-family development, are expected to sustain tight market conditions.

Information on rental rates in Ventura County were obtained from a review of advertisements in the Ventura County Star, Craigslist, and Kitty Letter Rental Listing (September 2009 – October 2009). Available rental housing ranged from single room studios to four-bedroom units, with the majority of apartment units advertised being two- and three-bedroom units. Table 33 summarizes average apartment rents by jurisdiction and unit size. The highest overall rents in the County were found in unincorporated Ventura County, Thousand Oaks, and Moorpark.

Table 33: Average Apartment Rents by City Average Number of Rooms (Average Rent) Rent Range City Rent Room Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR Camarillo $740 $925 $980$1,350 $1,880 $2,530 $545 - $3,050 $1,400 Fillmore $600 $790 $830 $1,110 $1,750 $1,950 $500 - $2,100 $1,170 Moorpark $800 N/A $1,190 $1,550 $1,950 $2,730 $650 - $2,950 $1,640 Ojai $650 $830 $1,110 $1,378 $2,036 $3,233 $525 - $3,950 $1,540 Oxnard $600 $940 $1,110 $1,330 $1,650 $2,060 $500 - $2,450 $1,280 Port Hueneme $630 N/A $1,010 $1,260 $1,680 $1,980 $500 - $2,200 $1,310 Santa Paula $560 $770 $930 $1,110 $1,630 $3,650 $485 - $5,500 $1,440 Simi Valley $650 $870 $1,150 $1,480 $1,970 $2,510 $600 - $3,250 $1,440 Thousand Oaks $670 N/A $1,440 $1,560 $2,320 $2,400 $550 - $2,600 $1,678 Ventura $640 $990 $970 $1,330 $1,790 $2,450 $515 - $3,200 $1,360 Unincorporated $500 $910 $1,240 $1,720 $2,370 $3,520 $350 - $4,975 $1,710 Source: Ventura County Star; Craigslist, Kitty Letter Rental Listing, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 55

3. Housing Affordability

The cost of housing in a community is directly correlated to the number of housing problems and affordability issues. High housing costs can price lower income families out of the market, cause extreme cost burdens, or force households into overcrowded or substandard conditions. While housing affordability alone is not a fair housing issue, fair housing concerns may arise when housing affordability interacts with factors covered under the fair housing laws, such as household type, composition, and race/ethnicity.

Housing affordability can be estimated by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home with the maximum affordable housing costs to households at different income levels. Taken together, this information can generally indicate the size and type of housing available to each income group and can indicate which households are more susceptible to overcrowding and cost burden.

HUD conducts annual household income surveys to determine the maximum payments that are affordable for different household income groups. In evaluating affordability, the maximum affordable price refers to the maximum amount that could be afforded by households in the upper range of their respective income categories. Table 34 shows the annual household income by household size and generally, the maximum affordable housing payment based on the standard of 30 to 35 percent of household income. General cost assumptions for utilities, taxes, and property insurance are also shown.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 56

Table 34: Housing Affordability Affordable Costs Estimated Utility Taxes Affordable Prices Annual (All Costs) Allowance Household and Income Rental Ownership Renters OwnersInsurance Renters Owners Costs Costs Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) 1-Person $18,400 $460 $460 $122 $158 $92 $338 $43,466 2-Person $21,000 $525 $525 $151 $200 $105 $374 $45,536 3-Person $23,650 $591 $591 $180 $243 $118 $411 $47,605 4-Person $26,250 $656 $656 $209 $279 $131 $447 $50,917 5-Person $28,350 $709 $709 $242 $322 $142 $467 $50,710 Low Income (31-50% AMI) 1-Person $30,650 $766 $766 $122 $158 $153 $644 $94,176 2-Person $35,000 $875 $875 $151 $200 $175 $724 $103,490 3-Person $39,400 $985 $985 $180 $243 $197 $805 $112,804 4-Person $43,750 $1,094 $1,094 $209 $279 $219 $885 $123,360 5-Person $47,250 $1,181 $1,181 $242 $322 $236 $939 $128,948 Moderate Income (51-80%) 1-Person $49,000 $1,225 $1,225 $122 $158 $245 $1,103 $170,137 2-Person $56,000 $1,400 $1,400 $151 $200 $280 $1,249 $190,421 3-Person $63,000 $1,575 $1,575 $180 $243 $315 $1,395 $210,498 4-Person $70,000 $1,750 $1,750 $209 $279 $350 $1,541 $232,024 5-Person $75,600 $1,890 $1,890 $242 $322 $378 $1,648 $246,306 Middle/Upper Income (81-120% AMI) 1-Person $72,300 $1,808 $2,109 $122 $158 $422 $1,686 $316,472 2-Person $82,650 $2,066 $2,411 $151 $200 $482 $1,915 $357,764 3-Person $92,950 $2,324 $2,711 $180 $243 $542 $2,144 $398,608 4-Person $103,300 $2,583 $3,013 $209 $279 $603 $2,374 $441,142 5-Person $111,550 $2,789 $3,254 $242 $322 $651 $2,547 $472,086 Assumptions: HCD income limits, 2009; Health and Safety code definitions of affordable housing costs (between 30 and 35% of household income depending on tenure and income level); HUD utility allowance; 20% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance; 10% down payment; and 5% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Taxes and insurance apply to owner costs only; renters do not usually pay taxes or insurance. Source: State Department of Housing and Community Development Income Limits, 2009.

The countywide median home price ($419,000) in September 2009 places homeownership out of reach for most lower and moderate income households (Table 32). Even in the jurisdiction with the lowest median home price (Fillmore, at $230,000), homeownership is out of reach for most lower income households. Given the high costs of homeownership in the County, lower income households are usually confined to rental housing but the affordability problem also persists in the rental market. No jurisdiction in Ventura County had an average gross rent of under $1,100, which is in the range of affordability for low income families (Table 33).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 57

The situation is exacerbated for large households with lower and moderate incomes given the limited supply of large units, and for seniors with their fixed incomes. When the housing market is tight, with high demand, low vacancies, and rising costs, the potential for discriminatory housing practices also increases.

F. Housing Problems

1. Overpayment (Cost Burden)

State and federal standards specify that a household experiences housing overpayment (also known as cost burden) if it pays 30 percent or more of its gross income on housing. At least 35 percent of renter-households in every jurisdiction had a housing cost burden (Table 35). Cost burden by low-income households tends to occur when housing costs increase faster than income. Rates of renter cost burden were highest in the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, and Santa Paula.

In comparison, housing cost burden among owner-households was less prevalent. Table 35 shows the percentage of renters and owners by jurisdiction that is experiencing a housing cost burden. Approximately 31 percent of all home owners in the County experienced a housing cost burden. Rates of owner cost burden were highest in the cities of Ojai, Moorpark, and Port Hueneme.

Table 35: Housing Overpayment by Tenure City/Area Renter Owner Total Camarillo 35.6% 28.1% 30.1% Fillmore 43.8% 29.6% 35.1% Moorpark 40.1% 35.0% 35.9% Ojai 38.8% 40.6% 39.8% Oxnard 39.7% 30.8% 34.6% Port Hueneme 37.1% 31.4% 34.3% Santa Paula 39.8% 29.7% 34.0% Simi Valley 34.8% 30.9% 31.8% Thousand Oaks 39.7% 30.8% 33.0% Ventura 38.6% 27.5% 32.1% Overall County 37.9% 30.7% 33.0% Source: HUD CHAS Data, 2004.

2. Overcrowding

Overcrowding is defined as occupancy of a housing unit of more than one person per room. Severe overcrowding represents housing occupancy of more than 1.5 persons per room. (Rooms include living and dining rooms, and other habitable spaces such as family rooms or dens.) Overcrowding occurs when housing costs are so high relative to income that families have to reside in small units or double up to devote income to other basic needs such as food and medical care. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 58

conditions since some cultures tend to have larger household size than others due to the preference of living with extended family members. Overcrowding also tends to result in increased traffic, accelerated deterioration of homes, and crowded on-street parking conditions. As a result, some landlords or apartment managers may be more hesitant to rent to larger families, thus making access to adequate housing even more difficult.

From 1990 to 2000, overcrowding increased in most Participants at the community jurisdictions across the County, with the most workshops indicated that apparent increases occurring in Santa Paula (nine overcrowding is an issue among percentage points increase), Oxnard (six percent renters but they are not familiar increase) and Fillmore (six percent increase). with the occupancy standards or However, Camarillo and unincorporated areas the rights/ responsibilities of actually experienced a slight decrease in tenants and landlords. overcrowding conditions. Table 36 depicts the change in household overcrowding (by percent) throughout the County from 1990 to 2000.

Table 36: Overcrowded Households (1990 and 2000) City/Area 1990 2000 Camarillo 5.1% 4.9% Fillmore 22.8% 28.6% Moorpark 8.5% 8.7% Ojai 5.0% 6.7% Oxnard 25.0% 31.2% Port Hueneme 13.7% 17.1% Santa Paula 20.9% 29.4% Simi Valley 5.5% 5.8% Thousand Oaks 3.7% 4.5% Ventura 6.1% 7.8% Unincorporated County 9.4% 9.0% County Total 10.5% 12.4% Note: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provides estimates of overcrowding in 2007. However, that data is not available by jurisdiction. For consistency and comparison reasons, 2000 Census is used. Source: Bureau of the Census, 1990 and 2000.

The incidence of overcrowding is substantial for renters, particularly in the lower income categories. Table 37 shows the percentage of overcrowding by tenure for each jurisdiction. In Ventura County, 23 percent of all renters were living in overcrowded conditions in 2000. Large family renters as a group, regardless of income, were experiencing 23 percent overcrowding throughout the County.

The incidence of overcrowding for owners in Ventura County was not as severe. Approximately seven percent of owners in the County were experiencing overcrowding. However, the cities of Oxnard (22 percent), Fillmore (20 percent), and Santa Paula (19 percent) had the greatest percentage of owner-households experiencing overcrowding. Overall, the prevalence of overcrowding varied significantly among jurisdictions, with the

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 59 lowest percentage of overall overcrowding occurring in the City Thousand Oaks (5 percent) and the highest percentage occurring in the City of Oxnard (31 percent).

Table 37: Overcrowding by Tenure Tenure City/Area Total Renter Owner Camarillo 13.5% 1.8% 4.9% Fillmore 42.1% 20.2% 28.6% Moorpark 21.2% 6.1% 8.7% Ojai 10.3% 4.1% 6.7% Oxnard 43.4% 22.1% 31.2% Port Hueneme 19.6% 14.5% 17.1% Santa Paula 43.0% 19.3% 29.4% Simi Valley 12.0% 4.1% 5.8% Thousand Oaks 11.7% 2.2% 4.5% Ventura 13.4% 3.9% 7.8% Unincorporated County 19.4% 4.9% 9.0% Ventura County 23.0% 7.3% 12.4% Note: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) provides estimates of overcrowding in 2007. However, that data is not available by jurisdiction. For consistency and comparison reasons, 2000 Census is used. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000.

3. Disproportionate Housing Need

The following summarizes the extent of needs for housing assistance by various household characteristics, according to the CHAS data. Housing assistance is needed to address a variety of housing problems, including: 1) substandard housing conditions; 2) overcrowding; and 3) housing cost burden (spending at least 30 percent of household income on housing costs). A disproportionate housing need refers to any need group that is more than 10 percentage points above the need demonstrated for the total households. These housing problems reflect the ability of households in affording decent and adequate housing.

Disproportionate Housing Needs by Tenure

Ventura County had a moderate level of homeownership: about 68 percent of all homes in the County were owner-occupied (Table 28). The tenure distribution (owner versus renter) of a community's housing stock influences several aspects of the local housing market. Residential stability is influenced by tenure, with ownership housing much less likely to turn over than rental units. Housing cost burden, while faced by many households regardless of tenure, is typically more prevalent among renters. The ability or choice to own or rent a home is primarily related to household income, composition, and age of the householder. Housing discrimination also tends to occur more in the rental market.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 60

Renter-households in general had disproportionate housing needs:

• Approximately 53 percent of the County’s renter-households had housing problems, compared to 36 percent of owner-households and 41 percent of all households.

• Renter-households were more likely to be low and moderate income (57 percent), compared to 37 percent of all households.

Disproportionate Housing Needs by Tenure and Household Type

Elderly Households: Elderly households, particularly elderly renter households, in Ventura County were disproportionately affected by housing problems.

• Elderly renter-households were disproportionately affected by housing problems (55 percent), compared to 41 percent of all households.

• Elderly renter-households were also significantly more likely to experience a housing cost burden (54 percent), compared to 33 percent of all households.

Large Households: Large households, regardless of tenure, were disproportionately affected by housing problems. Specifically:

• Large family renters were substantially more likely to be affected by housing problems (78 percent), compared to 41 percent of total households.

• Large family owner households were also disproportionately affected by housing problems (55 percent), compared to 41 percent of all households.

Disproportionate Housing Needs by Tenure and Race

According to CHAS data, in 2000, Hispanics or Latinos had a disproportionate level of housing problems in Ventura County. Specifically:

• Hispanic renter households were much more likely to experience housing problems (72 percent), compared to 53 percent of the County’s renter households and 41 percent of all households.

• Hispanic owner households were also more likely to experience housing problems (57 percent), compared to 36 percent of the County’s owner households and 41 percent of all households.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 61

G. Assisted Housing

The availability and location of public and assisted housing may be a fair housing concern. If such housing is concentrated in one area of a community or of a region, a household seeking affordable housing is limited to choices within the area. Public/assisted housing and housing assistance must be accessible to qualified households regardless of race/ethnicity, disability, or other special characteristics.

1. Section 8 Rental Assistance

Despite popular perception, most of the nation’s affordable housing stock is not in public housing projects but in privately owned and operated developments subsidized by the federal government.8 Section 8 is a rent subsidy program that helps low income families and seniors pay rents of private units. Section 8 tenants pay a minimum of 30 percent of their income for rent and the local housing authority pays the difference up to the payment standard established by housing authority. The program offers low income households the opportunity to obtain affordable, privately owned rental housing and to increase their housing choices. The housing authority establishes payment standards based on HUD-established Fair Market Rents. The owner’s asking price must be supported by comparable rents in the area. Any amount in the excess of the payment standard is paid by the program participant.

There are currently five Housing Authorities that administer the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program for Ventura County residents:

• Housing Authority of Oxnard : Administers four public housing projects with a total of 680 units, as well as an additional 100 units on scattered sites. As of November 2009, 2,871 households were receiving Section 8 Vouchers. An additional 1,227 households are on the waiting list for public housing and 2,387 households on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance.

• Housing Authority of Port Hueneme: Administers two public housing projects with a total of 90 units, as well as an additional 27 units on scattered sites. As of September 2009, 260 households were receiving Section 8 Vouchers. An additional 293 households are on the waiting list for public housing and 381 households on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance.

• Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura: Administers 714 units of public housing. As of September 2009, 1,188 households were receiving Section 8 Vouchers. An additional 1,878 households are on the waiting list for public housing and 3,333 households on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance.

8 Forbes, Elaine, “Eroding Neighborhood Integration: The Impact of California’s Expiring Section 8 rent Subsidy Contracts on Low Income Family Housing " UCLA Lewis Center for regional Policy Studies, Working Paper #34, 2000. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 62

• Housing Authority of Santa Paula: As of October 2009, 577 households were receiving Section 8 Vouchers. An additional 1,008 households are on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance. Santa Paula has no public housing units.

• Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura: Administers seven public housing projects with a total of 350 units. As of September 2009, 2,472 households were receiving Section 8 Vouchers. An additional 2,120 households on the waiting list for public housing and 337 households on the waiting list for Section 8 assistance.

As of September 2009, a total of 7,368 Ventura County households were receiving Section 8 Assistance, with 34 percent of all vouchers being administered by the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (Table 38). The Housing Authority of the City of Oxnard, however, administers more vouchers and certificates than any other housing authority in Ventura County (39 percent). Approximately 16 percent of vouchers are issued by the City of San Buenaventura Housing Authority; eight percent are issued by the City of Santa Paula Housing Authority and the remaining four percent by the City of Port Hueneme Housing Authority.

Table 38 and Table 39 summarize the race and ethnicity of the head of households of those households being assisted by public housing and Section 8. Most of the County’s Section 8 recipients (48 percent) were Hispanic. Table 38 also assesses the concentration of Section 8 recipients on a per-1,000 population basis. As shown, the City of Santa Paula has the highest concentration of vouchers.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 63

Table 38: Race/Ethnicity of Section 8 Recipients Black or Non- Vouchers/ Housing Authority/ Hispanic African Hispanic Other Total 1,000 Type of Assistance or Latino American White Population City of Port Hueneme 24 167 58 11 260 11.73 City of San 62 412 690 24 1,188 10.92 Buenaventura City of Santa Paula 1 468 105 3 577 19.41 City of Oxnard 271 1,764 662 174 2,871 14.57 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Camarillo 23 143245 21 432 6.53 Fillmore 0 16643 2 211 13.49 Moorpark 5 4788 4 144 3.88 Ojai 4 1678 3 101 12.38 Simi Valley 34 142 572 64 812 6.45 Thousand Oaks 29 139 370 39 577 4.49 Unincorporated 2 108 82 3 195 2.01 Total 97 7611,478 136 2,472 -- Total 455 3,572 2,993 348 7,368 8.81 Note: 1. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, Section 8 data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 2. A multi-ethnic household receiving Section 8 assistance is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 64

Table 39: Race/Ethnicity of Public Housing Tenants Black or Non- Housing Authority/ Hispanic or African Hispanic Other Total Type of Assistance Latino American White City of Port Hueneme 3 27 12 1 43 City of San 28 286 393 7 714 Buenaventura City of Oxnard 35 2,511 23 26 2,595 Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Camarillo 12041 26 Moorpark 010164 30 Ojai 2 20 102 8 132 Thousand Oaks 556899 159 Total 8 106 211 22 347 Total 74 2,930 639 56 3,699 Note: 1. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, Housing Authority data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 2. A multi-ethnic household in pubic housing is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County.

Table 40 describes the household characteristics of Ventura County’s Section 8 voucher holders. Of the 7,368 households receiving Section 8 vouchers, 28 percent have a head of household with a disability, 25 percent have elderly head of households, seven percent are large families, and 41 percent are female-headed households.

Table 40: Characteristics of Section 8 Recipients Housing Authority/ Large Female-Headed Elderly Disabled Total Type of Assistance Family Household City of Port Hueneme 39 46 90 208 260 City of San Buenaventura 304 401 -- 390 1,188 City of Santa Paula 170 124 70 448 577 City of Oxnard 560 628 270 111 2,871 County of Ventura 772 897 184 1,874 2,472 Total 1,845 2,096 524 3,031 7,368

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 65

2. Assisted and Public Housing Projects

As in typical urban environments throughout the country, areas designated for high density housing in the County are usually adjacent to areas designated for commercial and industrial uses. Lower and moderate income households tend to live in high density areas, where the lower land costs per unit (i.e. more units on a piece of property) can result in lower development costs and associated lower housing payments. Therefore, the location of public/assisted housing is partly the result of economic feasibility.

A number of developments countywide have been identified where some or all of the units are affordable for low to moderate income households. Together these projects provide 7,905 units of affordable housing. A list detailing the County’s affordable housing inventory is provided in Appendix B. Figure 3 illustrates the location of these units. In addition to these assisted housing and public housing units, the decline in median home values over the last three years suggests that a significant number of previously market-rate units are now affordable, despite not being publicly assisted. While these units are not discussed in detail, they do provide an important source of affordable housing for the region. Most of the region’s affordable housing stock is concentrated in western Ventura County, near the cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Ventura. Clusters of affordable housing can also be seen in the cities of Camarillo and Simi Valley. There is a distinct lack of affordable housing available in central and northern Ventura County. The lack of affordable housing resources in these regions may become acute as the population in these areas increases.

Jurisdictions can encourage policies to balance the locations of assisted/public housing in their communities. If financially feasible, programs and incentives can be initiated or expanded to provide more opportunities to locate public/assisted housing outside of the Low and Moderate Income areas.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 66

Figure 3: Affordable Housing in Ventura County

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 67

3. Licensed Community Care Facilities

Persons with special needs, such as the elderly and those with disabilities, must also have access to housing in a community. Community care facilities provide a supportive housing environment to persons with special needs in a group situation. Restrictions that prevent this type of housing represent a fair housing concern.

According to the State of California Community Care Licensing Division of the State’s Department of Social Services, there are 947 State-licensed community care facilities located in Ventura County. The locations of these facilities are shown in Figure 4. Concentrations of licensed care facilities can be seen within the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura.

Table 41 provides a tabulation of licensed care capacity by jurisdiction. The ratio of beds per 1,000 persons is used to identify concentration of residential care facilities. Licensed care facilities in Ventura County are most concentrated in Ojai, Camarillo, and Ventura and are least concentrated in Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and the unincorporated areas of the County. Oxnard has the greatest number of facilities (267 facilities with a total capacity of 5,606 beds), while the City of Ventura has the largest total capacity (152 facilities with a total capacity of 6,063 beds).

Table 41: Licensed Community Care Facilities by Jurisdiction Capacity Number of Zoning Compliant Jurisdiction Beds/1,000 Facilities Beds with Lanterman Act Population Camarillo 105 3,719 56.22 Yes Fillmore 13 398 25.45 Yes Moorpark 16 1,062 28.64 Yes Ojai 36 1,219 149.44 No Oxnard 267 5,606 28.45 Yes Port Hueneme 19 489 22.06 Yes Santa Paula 21 550 18.50 No Simi Valley 165 4,500 35.77 Yes Thousand Oaks 101 4,267 33.19 No Ventura 152 6,063 55.73 Yes Unincorporated County 52 1,543 15.92 Yes County Total 947 29,416 35.18 -- Source: Number of licensed facilities and capacities obtained from the State of California Department of Social Services, Community Care Licensing Division, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 68

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 69

H. Parks and Recreation Facilities

Parks and recreation activities are important resources within any community. Improving recreational opportunities and expanding a community’s park system within underserved areas are important objectives. In a 2001 survey conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties, an overwhelming majority (89 percent) of respondents felt that parks and recreation facilities are beneficial to their community. Seventy-four (74) percent of respondents believed parks would help prevent juvenile crime and delinquency. Eighty-six (86) percent felt that parks and open spaces benefit economic stability and property values in their communities. Most importantly, 92 percent thought that all levels of government should take steps to preserve and expand parks and open spaces for future generations.9

In Ventura County the abundance of natural recreation resources has given rise to the establishment of many recreation facilities. A wide variety of agencies provide these facilities. At the Federal level, Ventura County contains the Los Padres National Forest, the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area and the Channel Islands National Monument. While state parks and open space lands are located along the coast, within the Santa Monica Mountains area and at Hungry Valley State Recreation Area.

Recreation facilities can be divided into two main categories: regional and local. A regional recreation area is an extent of land which, by its unique natural character or unusual or extensive development, offers recreation opportunities that attract patronage from beyond the local vicinity without regard to physical, political or municipal boundaries. Local parks provide facilities to serve the daily needs of a neighborhood or group of neighborhoods within an urban community. Recreation areas can also serve the ancillary purposes of preserving open space, providing water resources, buffering urban land uses and preserving biological, cultural and scenic resources.

Families with children and seniors in search of housing often factor in the proximity of parks and recreation facilities (such as a community center with childcare and recreation programs or a senior center with a lunch program and other services). The lack of parks and recreation facilities in some neighborhoods, to some extent, limit the location choices of certain segments of the population when searching for housing.

The majority of County residents receive local park service from a local city or recreation and park district. The Pleasant Valley Recreation and Park District provides local park facilities in the Camarillo area. The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District serves the Simi Area and the Rancho Conejo Recreation and Park District provides local and some regional facilities and an extensive trail system in the Thousand Oaks vicinity. The above District's service areas extend into unincorporated territory outside the principal cities. Other incorporated cities provide recreation services through their own recreation departments. Some cities also operate regional recreation facilities. A complete list of park facilities in

9 National Association of Counties and U.S. Conference of Mayors. 2001 Parks Survey. Conducted by National Research, LLC. 2001 http://www.naco.org Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 70

Ventura County can be found in Appendix C. These facilities are also shown in Figure 5. Active parkland in Ventura County is concentrated in the unincorporated areas of the County and the cities of Moorpark and Thousand Oaks. Clusters of parkland can also be found along the County’s coastline in the western edges of Ventura, Oxnard, and Port Hueneme. From a per-1,000 population basis though, the unincorporated areas and the City of Moorpark has the largest ratio of parkland acreage.

Table 42: Active Parkland (by Jurisdiction) Acres/1,000 Jurisdiction Acreage % of County Population Camarillo 321.2 1.4% 4.86 Fillmore 70.5 0.3% 4.51 Moorpark 1,335.9 5.7% 36.02 Ojai 155.7 0.7% 19.09 Oxnard 875.1 3.7% 4.44 Port Hueneme 135.5 0.6% 6.11 Santa Paula 459.2 2.0% 15.45 Simi Valley 2,259.1 9.7% 19.40 Thousand Oaks 2,323.3 9.9% 18.07 Ventura 839.8 3.6% 7.72 Unincorporated County 14,605.0 62.4% 150.69 Ventura County 23,380.3 100.0% 27.96

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 71

Figure 5: Active Parkland in Ventura County Figure 5: Active Parkland

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 72

I. Accessibility to Public Transit

Public transit information is important to the analysis of impediments to fair housing, as access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices. Public transit should link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage rates and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally lower and moderate income neighborhoods. The lack of a relationship between public transit, employment opportunities, and affordable housing may impede fair housing choice because persons who depend on public transit will have limited choices regarding places to live. In addition, elderly and disabled persons also often rely on public transit to visit doctors, go shopping, or attend activities at community facilities. Public transit that provides a link between job opportunities, public services, and affordable housing helps to ensure that transit-dependent residents have adequate opportunity to access housing, services, and jobs.

1. Major Employers

Job growth has slowed considerably throughout the County since mid-2006, which coincides with the initial stages of the real estate downturn. Non-farm job growth stood at 1.3 percent for 2007, representing nearly 4,000 additional jobs countywide, and, as expected, job growth fell in real estate, construction and related industries. As of early 2009, the unemployment rate in Ventura County stood at around 9 percent, an increase of four percentage points from just two years earlier, but comparable to the nationwide rate of 8.9 percent. Every single employment sector lost jobs from December 2008 to January 2009. But, in a sign that the employment picture may be improving, the number of jobs increased in education and health services, government, leisure and hospitality, and farming in February 2009.

A review of the County’s top employers reveals the diversity of industry and employment in Ventura County. The military’s presence is a strong one, with the consolidated Naval Base Ventura County leading the pack, followed by government jobs, specifically the thousands of people who work for the County of Ventura and State of California. Biotech research giant, Amgen, also has a considerable presence in Ventura County. Table 43 lists the ten largest employers in Ventura County in 2009 and Figure 6 shows the location of these major employers in relation to public transportation routes.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 73

Table 43: Major Employers in Ventura County Business Location Industry 1 Amgen Center Dr Amgen, Inc. Biotechnology Newbury Park, CA 91320 521 9th St Naval Air Warfare Center National Security Point Mugu NAWC, CA 93042 1000 23rd Ave Naval Construction Battalion National Security Port Hueneme, CA 93043-4300 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura County1 Government Ventura, CA 93009 1 Baxter Way Baxter Bioscience Westlake Village, CA 91362- Medical Equipment 3813 1 Baxter Way Baxter Healthcare Westlake Village, CA 91362- Medical Equipment 3813 2000 Corporate Center Drive Blue Cross of California Insurance Newbury Park, CA 91320 Community Memorial 147 N Brent St Ambulatory Health Care Service Hospital2 Ventura, CA 93003-2854 100 Rocklite Rd Coleman Welding Repair and Maintenance Ventura, CA 93001-1540 147 N Brent St Community Memorial Hospital Hospital Ventura, CA 93003-2854 Source: State of California, Employment Development Division and InfoUSA, 2009. Notes: 1. County of Ventura employees do not all work at the administrative offices located on 800 S. Victoria. Employees work in offices scattered all over the County, with the greatest concentrations in Ventura, Oxnard, and Simi Valley. 2. CMH has clinics and facilities throughout the County. The address indicated is CMH’s administrative offices.

2. Public Transit

In Ventura County, 1.2 percent of the County’s commuters age 16 and older used public transit as their primary means of transportation to work. The highest concentrations of commuters using transit were found in the more populated cities of Thousand Oaks, Ventura, Simi Valley, and Oxnard – areas better-served by transit. The less urbanized cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Santa Paula make up a significantly smaller proportion, only 12 percent, of the transit users in Ventura County.

Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic workers constitute the largest group of public transportation riders (61 percent and 31 percent, respectively). Significantly fewer Black (4 percent), Asian (2 percent), Native American (1 percent), and Pacific Islander (1 percent) residents use public transportation to get to their place of employment. The following section provides a general overview of public transit systems and amenities available in Ventura County as of fall 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 74

Countywide public transit planning is the responsibility of the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC). The Commission develops and implements policies, projects, funding and priorities for a wide variety of transportation-related projects in Ventura County. The Commission is responsible for highways, bus services, aviation services, commuter and freight railroads, bicycling and bike paths, as well as many other transportation areas.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 75

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 76

Local Public Bus Service

Bus and rail transportation services in Ventura County are provided by several transit operators. Thirteen publicly-funded transit services operate in Ventura County, in addition to two intercity rail lines and one commuter rail line. Local public transit service (fixed-route and dial-a-ride) in Ventura County is provided by several transit operators managed mainly by local agencies. The cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks manage their own municipal fixed-route and dial-a-ride services that operate mainly within city boundaries. Gold Coast Transit, a Joint Powers Agency created by the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura and the County of Ventura, provides fixed-route and paratransit service to western Ventura County. Table 44 provides a list of the local transit service providers in Ventura County along with a brief description of the services they provide.

Table 44: Local Transit Service Providers Agency Fixed-Route Service Dial-a-Ride Services Curb-to-curb transit service available Camarillo to the general public. Vehicle will Area Transit One fixed route bus travels throughout the City. travel anywhere within the Camarillo (CAT) city limits. Door-to-door, non-emergency, Care-A-Van medical paratransit service from (Camarillo Camarillo throughout Ventura None. Health Care County and to Kaiser Hospital in District) Woodland Hills. Available to the general public. ACCESS provides curb-to-curb 17 scheduled fixed bus routes with a fleet of 48 large ADA service for people with Gold Coast transit buses serve the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, Port disabilities and senior citizens who Transit Hueneme, and Ventura and the county cannot use the fixed-route bus unincorporated area between them. system. A volunteer organization providing Help of Ojai None. transportation services to seniors and the disabled. Moorpark Senior Dial-A-Ride: Curb- to-curb service offered to residents age 62 and older. Two fixed routes. Each route consists of a one-way Moorpark City Moorpark Disabled Paratransit: loop of approximately sixteen miles, with about forty Transit Curb-to-curb service throughout stops. Moorpark, Thousand Oaks and Camarillo for disabled riders regardless of age. Curb-to-curb service available to the general public within Agoura Hills Oak Park None. and Oak Park, and to the Agoura Dial-A-Ride Hills/Calabasas Community Center in Calabasas. Oxnard General public Dial-A-Ride service Harbors & to beaches, Channel Islands Harbor, None. Beaches Dial- Oxnard Airport, and the Oxnard A-Ride Transportation Center.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 77

Table 44: Local Transit Service Providers Two fixed-routes with daily service to Ojai, Meiners Ojai Trolley None. Oaks and Mira Monte. Curb-to-curb ADA/Paratransit Dial- Serves Simi Valley with four regular bus routes, one A-Ride service to individuals with Simi Valley of which connects with the Los Angeles County special needs and to seniors age 60 Transit Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in and over. Travels within the City of Chatsworth. Simi Valley. General purpose and ADA services are available within the Thousand Operates four regular bus routes. TOT serves Thousand Oaks City boundary and the County Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, and the Westlake Oaks Transit Unincorporated areas of Ventura area. Park, Rolling Oaks, Lynn Ranch and Newbury Park. Operates seven regular inter-city bus routes. Connects Operates two general public dial-a- VISTA with all other fixed-route transit systems except the ride services: Fillmore/Piru Dial-A- Ojai Trolley. Ride and Santa Paula Dial-A-Ride. Commuter Express route 422 provides service from LA to Hollywood, San Fernando Valley, Agoura Hills, and Thousand Oaks. Commuter Express route LA DOT 423 provides service from LA to Encino Park & None. Ride, Calabasas, Thousand Oaks, and Newbury Park. Commuter Express route 575 provides service from the Warner Center to Simi Valley. Line 161 provides local bus service from the LACMTA (LA Thousand Oaks Transportation Center to Westlake, None. Metro) Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and Warner Center. Source: Ventura County Transportation Commission, 2009.

In addition to the bus systems listed above, there are several smaller public bus systems that operate in Ventura County. They include the Ojai Trolley managed by the City of Ojai; the Beaches Dial-a-Ride managed by the City of Oxnard, the Oak Park Dial-a-Ride managed by the County, the Senior Mini-Bus managed by the City of Ventura, and the Camarillo Health Care District’s non-emergency medical paratransit service available to residents in the greater Camarillo and Somis area. Local dial-a-ride service in Fillmore, Santa Paula and Piru is provided by the Ventura Intercity Service Transit Authority (VISTA) which is managed by VCTC.

Public Commuter Bus and Inter-County Bus Services

The VISTA fixed-route intercity bus service connects with all but one local transit operator in Ventura County, making it possible for people to travel by bus throughout the populated areas of the County. VISTA stops are limited to transit stations and transfer points, colleges, civic centers and major employment centers. VISTA does not directly connect to the Ojai Trolley in Ojai; however, Gold Coast Transit connects with VISTA at several locations and with the Ojai Trolley in Ojai. VISTA also provides service south to Warner Center in Los Angeles County and north to the cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, and Goleta in Santa Barbara County. The VISTA fixed-route system utilizes the major freeway corridors to travel between stops including State Routes 23, 118, 126 and U.S. 101.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 78

In addition, the Simi Valley Transit fixed-route service provides connections with Los Angeles County’s Metro in the San Fernando Valley Community of Chatsworth. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) operates three routes that provide service to eastern Ventura County. Commuter Express route 422 provides service between Los Angeles and Thousand Oaks, Route 423 provides service between Los Angeles and Thousand Oaks/Newbury Park; and Route 575 provides service between the Warner Center and Simi Valley. Los Angeles County Metro Local Line 161 provides bus service between the Thousand Oaks Transit Center and Warner Center.

Commuter and Intercity Rail Services

Metrolink provides regional commuter rail service between Ventura County and Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles on weekdays. A total of 18 daily Metrolink trains run between Ventura County and Union Station on the Coast Main Line. Ten trains travel between the Moorpark rail station and Union Station, six trains between the Montalvo Metrolink Station (Ventura) and Union Station, and two trains between the Oxnard Transportation Center and Union Station. A total of five Metrolink station stops in Ventura County: Simi Valley, Moorpark, Camarillo, Oxnard and the community of Montalvo in the City of Ventura. Metrolink does not provide service to the Ventura Amtrak station by the Ventura County Fairgrounds (Seaside Park).

Currently, there are two separate Amtrak services in Ventura County: the Pacific Surfliner and the Coast Starlight. The Amtrak Pacific Surfliner offers intercity service between San Diego and San Luis Obispo, with stops at five rail stations in Ventura County: Simi Valley, Moorpark, Camarillo, Oxnard and Ventura (at the Seaside Park station, not Montalvo). Amtrak also provides bus connections at train stations to other destinations. The Amtrak Coast Starlight intercity rail line provides two daily trips between Los Angeles and Seattle in Washington State, one north and one south. The Coast Starlight makes only two stops in Ventura County: the Simi Valley rail station and the Oxnard Transportation Center.

Private Providers

There are several private companies that provide transportation within and outside of Ventura County. These companies include “airport” shuttles, limousine, taxi cab and bus charter transportation services. In addition, Greyhound, the largest provider of intercity bus transportation, offers bus service from the Oxnard Greyhound station in Oxnard to more than 2,300 destinations with 13,000 daily departures across North America. And, finally, Transportes Intercalifornias provides bus service from Oxnard to Tijuana and Mexicali in Mexico, and to specific locations throughout California.

As shown in Figure 6, public transit providers serve large portions of the western and southern areas of the County, specifically the jurisdictions of Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, and Simi Valley. Transit ridership is most prevalent in the more urbanized cities of Thousand Oaks, Ventura, Simi Valley, and Oxnard –where transit service is most readily available. Access to most of the north and east Ventura County is non-existent. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 79

Generally within the County of Ventura, major employers are located directly on or adjacent to public transit routes. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Low-income workers, especially female heads of household with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home, regardless of access to public transit. Women in general are disproportionately responsible for household-supporting activities such as trips to grocery stores or to accompany young children to and from schools. Women using public transit are often limited to looking for employment near home that will allow them time to complete these household-sustaining trips.

Another potential concern is the lack of public transit options for farmworkers, particularly those living in the northern and eastern portions of the County. There is a concentration of farmworkers in the City of Santa Paula where bus services are limited.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 3: Community Profile May 2010 Page 80

Chapter 4 - Lending Practices

A key aspect of fair housing choice is equal access to credit for the purchase or improvement of a home, particularly in light of the current lending/credit crisis. This chapter reviews the lending practices of financial institutions and the access to financing for all households, particularly minority households and those with lower incomes. Lending patterns in low and moderate income neighborhoods and areas of minority concentration are also examined. However, publicly available data on lending does not contained detailed information to make conclusive statements of discrimination, but can only point out potential areas of concerns. Furthermore, except for outreach and education efforts, local jurisdictions’ ability to influence lending practices is limited. Such practices are largely governed by national policies and regulations.

A. Background

Discriminatory practices in home mortgage lending have evolved in the last five to six decades. In the 1940s and 1950s, racial discrimination in mortgage lending was easy to spot. From government-sponsored racial covenants to the redlining practices of private mortgage lenders and financial institutions, minorities were denied access to home mortgages in ways that severely limited their ability to purchase a home. Today, discriminatory lending practices are more subtle and tend to take different forms. While mortgage loans are readily available in low income minority communities, by employing high-pressure sales practices and deceptive tactics, some mortgage brokers push minority borrowers into higher-cost subprime mortgages that are not well suited to their needs and can lead to financial problems. Consequently, minority consumers continue to have less-than-equal access to loans at the best price and on the best terms that their credit history, income, and other individual financial considerations merit.

1. Legislative Protection

In the past, financial institutions did not always employ fair lending practices. Credit market distortions and other activities such as “redlining” were prevalent and prevented some groups from having equal access to credit. The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1977 and the subsequent Home Mortgage Disclosure Act were designed to improve access to credit for all members of the community and hold the lender industry responsible for community lending.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 81

Community Reinvestment Act and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is intended to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. Depending on the type of institution and total assets, a lender may be examined by different supervising agencies for its CRA performance.

CRA ratings are provided by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). However, the CRA rating is an overall rating for an institution and does not provide insights regarding the lending performance at specific locations by the institution.

Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

In tandem with the CRA, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requires lending institutions to make annual public disclosures of their home mortgage lending activity. Under HMDA, lenders are required to disclose information on the disposition of home loan applications and on the race or national origin, gender, and annual income of loan applicants. This section examines detailed 2008 HMDA data for Ventura County, which includes an analysis of Loan Application Records (LAR) and Transmittal Sheet (TS) raw data collected under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).

HMDA data provide some insight into the lending patterns that exist in a community. However, HMDA data are only an indicator of potential problems; the data cannot be used to conclude definite redlining or discrimination practices due to the lack of detailed information on loan terms or specific reasons for denial.

Conventional versus Government-Backed Financing

Conventional financing involves market-rate loans provided by private lending institutions such as banks, mortgage companies, savings and loans, and thrift institutions. To assist lower and moderate income households that may have difficulty in obtaining home mortgage financing in the private market due to income and equity issues, several government agencies offer loan products that have below market rate interests and are insured (“backed”) by the agencies. Sources of government-backed financing include loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Rural Housing Services/Farm Service Agency (RHA/FSA). Often government-backed loans are offered to the consumers through private lending institutions. Local programs such as first- time homebuyer and rehabilitation programs are not subject to HMDA reporting requirements.

Typically, low income households have a much better chance of getting a government- assisted loan than a conventional loan. However, the recent lending market offered subprime loan options such as zero percent down, interest-only, and adjustable loans. As a result, government-backed loans have been a less attractive option for many households. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 82

With the recent difficulties in the sub-prime housing market, however, this option is no longer available, and many households are facing foreclosure. In response, the federal government in September 2007 created a government-insured foreclosure avoidance initiative, FHASecure, to assist tens of thousands of borrowers nation-wide in refinancing their sub-prime home loans. As government-backed loans are again publicized and subprime loans are less of an option to borrowers, the increased use of government-backed loan applications is likely. However, expanded marketing to assist potential homeowners in understanding the requirements and benefits of these loans may be necessary.

B. Conventional Home Loans

Home Purchase Loans

Ventura County has an active housing market, as evidenced by the 12,690 conventional home purchase loan applications submitted in 2008 (Table 46). This, however, represents a significant decline from the 33,582 households that applied for conventional home loans in 2003 (Figure 7). Countywide, 55 percent of the loan applications in 2008 were approved10, 15 percent were denied, and 11 percent were withdrawn or closed by the applicant. In 2003, 61 percent of total loan applications were approved, nine percent were denied, and nine percent were withdrawn or closed by the applicant (Table 45).

Figure 7: Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2003 versus 2008)

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000 Number ofApplications

1,000

0 Ca ma rillo Fillmore Moorpa rk Oja i Oxna rd Port Hueneme Sa nta Pa ula Simi Va lley Thousand Oaks Ventura Unincorporated County Jurisdiction 2003 2008

10 For the purposes of this chapter, “approved loans” include both originated loans and loans approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants. Originated loans are those approved by the lenders and purchased by the applicants. “Total applications” includes “approved loans”, plus loans purchased, preapproval denied, and preapproval loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant. Thus, throughout this chapter, “Approved”, “Denied”, and “Other” sum to less than 100 percent of the total applications. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 83

Among the eleven jurisdictions in Ventura County, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley had the most loan applications, while Ojai, Fillmore, and Santa Paula had the fewest in both 2003 and 2008. Loan approval rates varied somewhat by jurisdiction, with the cities of Moorpark, Thousand Oaks, and Camarillo exhibiting the highest approval rates in 2008 (61 percent, 58 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Loan applications in the cities of Ojai, Oxnard, and Fillmore had the lowest approval rates (ranging from 50 to 53 percent), while Fillmore, Oxnard, and Santa Paula exhibited the highest rates of application denial.

By contrast, in 2003, the cities of Ojai, Port Hueneme and Thousand Oaks had the highest home loan approval rates (66 percent, 64 percent and 63 percent, respectively). Loan applications in Oxnard, Ventura City, and Moorpark had the lowest approval rates (ranging from 59 to 60 percent), while Fillmore, Ojai, and Santa Paula exhibited the highest rates of application denial.

“Loans Purchased” are defined as those loans that were approved/originated by one lender but were then sold to another lender. These loans usually apply to subprime loans. In 2008, the cities of Ojai, Camarillo, and Fillmore had a higher proportion of loans “purchased” than all other jurisdictions in Ventura County. In 2003, the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark and Ventura had the highest percentage of loans purchased.

Aside from income, another major impediment to securing a home loan is insufficient understanding of the homebuying and lending processes. About 11 percent of applications countywide were withdrawn by the applicants or deemed incomplete by the financial institution in 2008 and nine percent of applications were withdrawn in 2003. Jurisdictions with the lowest approval rates also tended to have the highest rate of withdrawn/closed applications. In 2003, Fillmore and Ventura City both exhibited this pattern, as did Oxnard and Ojai in 2008. Withdrawn or closed applications can be indicative of a lack of knowledge about the home buying and lending process.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 84

Table 45: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2003) Conventional Home Purchase Loans Total Jurisdiction Approvals2 Denials Other3 Purchased Applications1 # % # % # % # % Camarillo 2,874 1,773 61.7% 204 7.1% 253 8.8% 64422.4% Fillmore 564 337 59.8% 64 11.3% 59 10.5% 10418.4% Moorpark 1,621 966 59.6% 148 9.1% 153 9.4% 35421.8% Ojai 258 171 66.3% 30 11.6% 22 8.5% 3513.6% Oxnard 6,660 3,923 58.9% 741 11.1% 621 9.3% 1,375 20.6% Port Hueneme 1,109 704 63.5% 104 9.4% 82 7.4% 219 19.7% Santa Paula 709 433 61.1% 81 11.4% 58 8.2% 137 19.3% Simi Valley 5,724 3,596 62.8% 502 8.8% 454 7.9% 1,172 20.5% Thousand Oaks 6,566 4,159 63.3% 517 7.9% 605 9.2% 1,285 19.6% Ventura 3,669 2,179 59.4% 315 8.6% 352 9.6% 82322.4% Unincorporated County 3,828 2,354 61.5% 349 9.1% 350 9.1% 775 20.2% County Total 33,582 20,595 61.3% 3,055 9.1% 3,009 9.0% 6,923 20.6% Notes: 1. Total applications” includes all columns in this table, plus loans purchased, preapproval denied, and preapproval loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant. Thus, “Approved”, “Denied”, and “Other” do not equal 100% of the “Total Applications”. 2. Approved loans include both originated loans and loans approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants. Originated loans are those approved by the lenders and purchased by the applicants 3. Other includes applications withdrawn by applicant or incomplete applications. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 85

Table 46: Disposition of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2008) Conventional Home Purchase Loans Total Jurisdiction Approvals2 Denials Other3 Purchased Applications1 # % # % # % # % Camarillo 1,023 586 57.3% 110 10.8% 100 9.8% 22722.2% Fillmore 190 101 53.2% 35 18.4% 14 7.4% 4021.1% Moorpark 634 384 60.6% 91 14.4% 52 8.2% 10716.9% Ojai 114 57 50.0% 14 12.3% 14 12.3% 2925.4% Oxnard 2,811 1,436 51.1% 530 18.9% 379 13.5% 46616.6% Port Hueneme 539 297 55.1% 87 16.1% 68 12.6% 87 16.1% Santa Paula 287 162 56.4% 49 17.1% 24 8.4% 52 18.1% Simi Valley 1,943 1,057 54.4% 289 14.9% 222 11.4% 375 19.3% Thousand Oaks 2,228 1,292 58.0% 292 13.1% 230 10.3% 414 18.6% Ventura 1,565 886 56.6% 211 13.5% 187 11.9% 28118.0% Unincorporated 1,356 734 54.1% 184 13.6% 156 11.5% 282 20.8% County County Total 12,690 6,992 55.1% 1,892 14.9% 1,446 11.4% 2,360 16.4% Notes: 1. Total applications” includes all columns in this table, plus loans purchased, preapproval denied, and preapproval loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant. Thus, “Approved”, “Denied”, and “Other” do not equal 100% of the “Total Applications”. 2. Approved loans include both originated loans and loans approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants. Originated loans are those approved by the lenders and purchased by the applicants 3. Other includes applications withdrawn by applicant or incomplete applications. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Race and Ethnicity

Countywide, Non-Hispanic White residents submitted the most home loan applications in 2008, accounting for 64 percent of all applications (Figure 8). Hispanic residents accounted for 25 percent of applications, while Asians comprised seven percent. Black applicants accounted for only one percent of applications, and Native Americans and Pacific Islanders each accounted for less than one percent of applications.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 86

Figure 8: Race and Ethnicity of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applicants (2008)

Joint Not Available 1.9% 1.2% Hispanic or Latino 24.6%

Native American 0.2% Asian 7.1% Black or African American White 0.8% 63.8% Pacific Islander 0.4%

In 2003, Non-Hispanic White residents also submitted the most home loan applications countywide, however, not by quite as high a margin as in 2008. Non-Hispanic Whites accounted for just 47 percent of all applications in 2003 (Figure 9). Hispanic residents accounted for 21 percent of applications, while Asians comprised approximately five percent. Black applicants accounted for only one percent of applications, and Native Americas accounted for less than one percent of applications.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 87

Figure 9: Race and Ethnicity of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applicants (2003)

Hispanic or Not Available Latino 21.7% 20.9%

Native American 0.2% Joint Asian 3.5% 4.5% Black or African American 0.9%

Pacific Islander n/a

White 46.8%

The different racial/ethnic groups had varying approval rates within each jurisdiction. In 2008, Black applicants had a high variation in approval rates among jurisdictions, ranging from 33 percent in Moorpark to 83 percent approvals in Port Hueneme (Table 48). Hispanic applicants had the least variation in approval rates, ranging from 54 percent in Port Hueneme to 69 percent in Camarillo. Approval rates for Non-Hispanic White applicants ranged from 44 percent in Unincorporated Ventura County to 64 percent in Camarillo, while approval rates for Asian applicants ranged from 50 percent in Fillmore to 77 percent in Moorpark.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 88

In 2003, Black applicants, again, had the highest variation in approval rates among jurisdictions, ranging from 33 percent in Santa Paula to 86 percent approvals in Fillmore (Table 47). Hispanic applicants had moderate variation in approval rates, ranging from 46 percent in Ojai to 68 percent in Port Hueneme. Approval rates for Non-Hispanic White applicants varied the least, from 67 percent in Santa Paula to 73 percent in Ojai, and Asian applicant approval rates ranged from 50 percent in Fillmore to 77 percent in Camarillo.

Table 47: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2003) Jurisdiction Race of Applicant Black or Non- Hispanic or Asian African Hispanic Total1 Latino American White Camarillo 77.3% 63.6% 63.6% 68.7% 61.7% Fillmore 50.0% 85.7% 64.3% 69.7% 59.8% Moorpark 65.7% 66.7% 58.8% 70.0% 59.6% Ojai 66.7% 50.0% 45.5% 73.4% 66.3% Oxnard 70.2% 72.0% 63.4% 68.0% 58.9% Port Hueneme 65.9% 58.8% 68.1% 70.2% 63.5% Santa Paula 60.0% 33.3% 65.5% 67.3% 61.1% Simi Valley 72.6% 59.6% 67.1% 72.4% 62.8% Thousand Oaks 65.2% 67.4% 61.9% 72.0% 63.3% Ventura 73.2% 56.5% 63.0% 68.6% 59.4% Unincorporated 63.8% 65.2% 61.8% 70.5% 61.5% County County Total 68.9% 65.3% 63.7% 70.5% 61.3% Note: 1. “Totals” represent total approval rates for all applicants in a given jurisdiction, not merely for the applicants from ethnic groups presented in this table (i.e., totals include Native American, Pacific Islander, Joint applicants, “2 or More Minority”, and “Not Available”). 2. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, HMDA data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 3. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 89

Table 48: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loan Applications (2008) Race of Applicant Jurisdiction Black or African Hispanic or Non-Hispanic Asian Total1 American Latino White Camarillo 56.9% 50.0% 68.8% 64.1% 63.8% Fillmore 50.0% 0% 62.6% 55.1% 59.0% Moorpark 76.9% 33.3% 65.3% 62.1% 66.5% Ojai 0% 0% 0% 53.1% 52.9% Oxnard 62.4% 52.9% 58.1% 53.6% 55.9% Port Hueneme 63.0% 83.3% 54.4% 55.3% 55.6% Santa Paula 0% 0% 63.9% 57.5% 60.2% Simi Valley 55.3% 45.5% 61.4% 53.9% 59.5% Thousand Oaks 67.7% 40.0% 64.0% 47.9% 63.2% Ventura 57.6% 45.5% 64.5% 51.1% 61.9% Unincorporated County 57.6% 40.0% 61.7% 43.7% 58.2% County Total 61.6% 47.4% 62.1% 53.8% 59.9% Note: 1. “Totals” represent total approval rates for all applicants in a given jurisdiction, not merely for the applicants from ethnic groups presented in this table (i.e., totals include Native American, Pacific Islander, Joint applicants, “2 or More Minority”, and “Not Available”). 2. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, HMDA data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 3. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

HMDA data reveals that the racial/ethnic makeup of applicants for conventional home loans was not necessarily reflective of the racial/ethnic demographics of Ventura County (Table 49). In 2000, 57 percent of Ventura residents were Non-Hispanic White. However, in 2003, Non-Hispanic Whites made up just 47 percent of all applicants. In 2008, Non-Hispanic Whites were overrepresented in the applicant pool at 64 percent (compared to the 57 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites that made up the Ventura County population).

By comparison, Hispanics made up 33 percent of Ventura County residents in 2000; yet, they have been consistently underrepresented in the applicant pool for conventional home loans (just 21 percent in 2003, and 25 percent in 2008). Similarly, Blacks comprised approximately two percent of Ventura County residents in 2000, but have made up less than one percent of the applicant pool for conventional home loans in both 2003 and 2008.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 90

Table 49: Conventional Home Purchase Loans versus Ventura County Population

% of Total % of Total % of Total Race/Ethnicity Applications Applications Population (2003) (2008) (2000) Hispanic or Latino 20.9% 24.6% 33.4% Native American 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% Asian 4.5% 7.1% 5.4%* Black or African American 0.9% 0.8% 1.8% Pacific Islander n/a 0.4% n/a Non-Hispanic White 46.8% 63.8% 56.8% 2+ Minority Races n/a 0.0% 2.0% Joint 3.5% 1.9% 0.4%** Not Available 21.7% 1.2% n/a Total 100.0% 100.0% % Notes: * Percentage includes Asians and Pacific Islanders **Termed “Other” in race data for total population 1. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, HMDA data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 2. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County. 3. “Joint” refers to two people of different race/ethnic categories filing one application. Source: 1. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003 and 2008. 2. Bureau of the Census, 2000.

In general, approval rates were lowest for Black applicants in Ventura County (Figure 10). In 2003, Non-Hispanic Whites had noticeably higher approval rates than minority applicants. However, by 2008, this trend had essentially reversed, with Non-Hispanic White applicants receiving lower rates of home loan approvals than both Hispanic and Asian applicants.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 91

Figure 10: Conventional Home Purchase Loan Approval Rates by Race/Ethnicity

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Approval Rate Approval 20%

10%

0% Asian Black or African Hispanic or Latino White American Race and Ethnicity

2003 2008

Income

Income is one of the most important factors for determining access to credit. Therefore, approval rates generally have a positive correlation to income. Most loan applications in 2008 (49 percent) were received from households earning 120 percent or more than the median income. This income group also submitted the majority of loan applications (51 percent) in 2003. Approval rates were the highest for households in this income category in both 2003 and 2008 and, as expected, households earning less than 50 percent of the median income had the lowest approval rates, as well as the highest rates of denial and withdrawn/incomplete applications. Among applicants earning less than 50 percent of the County Area Median Income (AMI), roughly 50 percent of applications were approved in both 2003 and 2008. By contrast, at least 60 percent of applications from all other income groups were approved.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 92

Table 50: Approval Rates by Applicant Income (2003) Applicant Income (% AMI) Jurisdiction Not Total <50% 50-80% 80-100% 100-120% >120% Available Camarillo 59.1% 65.0% 69.8% 68.1% 70.3% 12.0% 61.7% Fillmore 53.8% 59.0% 65.2% 73.5% 68.6% 11.4% 59.8% Moorpark 41.2% 55.1% 64.5% 74.3% 69.4% 10.4% 59.6% Ojai 33.3% 64.7% 85.7% 72.0% 71.5% 18.5% 66.3% Oxnard 45.7% 60.8% 66.7% 64.6% 68.7% 14.6% 58.9% Port Hueneme 56.4% 59.0% 68.8% 71.9% 76.4% 20.3% 63.5% Santa Paula 52.9% 65.9% 63.3% 74.6% 68.7% 22.0% 61.1% Simi Valley 57.0% 67.6% 70.8% 67.9% 73.6% 13.1% 62.8% Thousand Oaks 54.0% 64.7% 70.2% 70.0% 72.7% 13.8% 63.3% Ventura 42.1% 61.9% 67.2% 66.9% 68.7% 15.0% 59.4% Unincorporated County 45.3% 60.3% 68.5% 70.6% 70.1% 16.3% 61.5% County Total 49.8% 62.8% 68.2% 68.2% 71.0% 14.3% 61.3% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Table 51: Approval Rates by Applicant Income (2008) Applicant Income (% AMI) Jurisdiction Not Total <50% 50-80% 80-100% 100-120% >120% Available Camarillo 56.3% 60.9% 67.5% 68.4% 65.2% 2.3% 57.3% Fillmore 85.7% 57.6% 72.7% 60.0% 50.0% 13.6% 53.2% Moorpark 52.6% 65.9% 65.9% 75.9% 68.2% 1.4% 60.6% Ojai 50.0% 28.6% 20.0% 33.3% 75.9% 16.7% 50.0% Oxnard 52.0% 57.6% 57.5% 63.2% 54.1% 3.5% 51.1% Port Hueneme 47.8% 65.0% 67.8% 45.9% 59.6% 4.4% 55.1% Santa Paula 66.7% 65.1% 68.6% 74.4% 56.8% 9.8% 56.4% Simi Valley 57.9% 58.6% 58.2% 61.6% 59.1% 10.0% 54.4% Thousand Oaks 57.4% 63.5% 70.4% 64.0% 65.3% 4.5% 58.0% Ventura 54.2% 63.5% 61.2% 63.7% 63.1% 5.5% 56.6% Unincorporated County 37.8% 52.2% 57.3% 58.9% 63.5% 7.4% 54.1% County Total 53.6% 59.9% 61.3% 62.7% 61.7% 5.6% 55.1% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Race Differences by Income of Applicant

An analysis of differences in loan approval rates by race/ethnicity and income separately does not always reveal important differences among groups. For this reason, an analysis of lending patterns for both race/ethnicity and income together is important in revealing differences among applicants of different races/ethnicities of the same income levels. While this analysis provides a more in-depth look at lending patterns, it still cannot provide a certain reason for any discrepancy. Aside from income, many other factors can contribute to

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 93

the availability of financing, including, credit history, the availability of a downpayment, and knowledge of the home buying process, among others. The HMDA data does not provide insight into these and many other factors. However, the County and individual jurisdictions should continue to monitor the approval rates among racial and ethnic groups through their fair housing service providers, and continue to take appropriate actions to remove barriers to financing, including outreach and education on lending frauds, predatory lending, and other discriminatory lending practices; down payment assistance; and home buyer education programs.

A difference in the approval rates for home purchase loans for Non-Hispanic White and non- White households did exist in 2008 (Table 52). Among low and moderate income households (those earning 80 percent of AMI or less), Whites had the highest approval rates (67 percent) while Blacks had the lowest (36 percent). Blacks in the high income category (those earning 120 percent of AMI or more) also had noticeably lower approval rates (54 percent) than Whites (67 percent) and Asians (64 percent). Since it is assumed that most households in this income category are financially capable of purchasing homes, the discrepancy in home loan approval rates indicates a reason for concern.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 94

Table 52: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (Race and Income) (2008) Approval Rate by Income District Ethnicity Total <80% 80-120% >120% Not AMI AMI AMI Available Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black or African 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% American Ojai Hispanic or Latino 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Non-Hispanic 53.1% 50.0% 41.7% 66.0% 0.0% White Not Applicable 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% Asian 62.4% 68.8% 63.3% 65.9% 0.0% Black or African 52.9% 0.0% 75.0% 75.0% 0.0% American Oxnard Hispanic or Latino 53.6% 57.4% 58.1% 47.6% 6.4% Non-Hispanic 58.1% 62.4% 61.9% 62.6% 3.7% White Not Applicable 57.1% 75.0% 80.0% 25.0% 0.0% Asian 63.0% 91.7% 64.3% 50.0% 0.0% Black or African 83.3% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% American Port Hueneme Hispanic or Latino 55.3% 59.3% 58.5% 48.0% 0.0% Non-Hispanic 54.4% 66.7% 64.3% 61.5% 4.9% White Not Applicable 60.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% Asian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Black or African 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% American Santa Paula Hispanic or Latino 57.5% 65.3% 66.7% 52.6% 0.0% Non-Hispanic 63.9% 80.0% 81.3% 63.9% 9.1% White Not Applicable 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% Asian 55.3% 45.5% 61.0% 58.2% 11.1% Black or African 45.5% 50.0% 100.0% 42.9% 0.0% American Simi Valley Hispanic or Latino 53.9% 56.3% 54.4% 54.8% 28.6% Non-Hispanic 61.4% 65.6% 65.4% 63.2% 19.7% White Not Applicable 62.5% 0.0% 25.0% 75.0% 0.0% Asian 67.7% 70.6% 77.8% 68.9% 0.0% Black or African 40.0% 0.0% 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% American Thousand Oaks Hispanic or Latino 47.9% 63.3% 54.5% 42.4% 0.0% Non-Hispanic 64.0% 65.2% 68.7% 70.0% 6.1% White Not Applicable 57.5% 71.4% 75.0% 50.0% 0.0%

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 95

Table 52: Approval Rates of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (Race and Income) (2008) Approval Rate by Income District Ethnicity Total <80% 80-120% >120% Not AMI AMI AMI Available Asian 57.6% 50.0% 85.7% 61.1% 0.0% Black or African 45.5% 0.0% 40.0% 75.0% 0.0% American Ventura Hispanic or Latino 51.1% 56.5% 60.7% 52.2% 5.0% Non-Hispanic 64.5% 69.5% 66.4% 67.4% 8.3% White Not Applicable 73.3% 50.0% 83.3% 71.4% 0.0% Asian 57.6% 37.5% 69.2% 64.3% 50.0% Black or African 40.0% 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 0.0% American Unincorporated Hispanic or Latino 43.7% 42.0% 45.0% 50.9% 0.0% County Non-Hispanic 61.7% 60.2% 67.7% 67.1% 10.9% White Not Applicable 62.5% 50.0% 25.0% 80.0% 0.0% Asian 61.6% 62.6% 66.9% 63.6% 6.1% Black or African 47.4% 36.4% 70.6% 54.1% 0.0% American Ventura County Hispanic or Latino 53.8% 58.3% 59.1% 51.0% 5.0% Total Non-Hispanic 62.1% 65.4% 67.4% 66.5% 8.9% White Not Applicable 60.2% 66.7% 63.3% 60.8% 0.0% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008. Notes: 1. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, HMDA data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 2. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 96

Gender

According to 2008 HMDA data, while female applicants comprised a smaller proportion of loan applicants in all jurisdictions, loans for female applicants were approved at a higher rate than for male applicants in all jurisdictions except Fillmore, Ojai, and Simi Valley (Table 54). The biggest difference in approval rates between men and women occurred in Santa Paula (57 percent versus 71 percent, respectively), Ojai (59 percent versus 46 percent, respectively), and Unincorporated Ventura County (52 percent versus 62 percent, respectively).

Similar gender variations in approval rates also occurred in 2003. Female applicants comprised a smaller proportion of loan applicants in all jurisdictions but were approved at higher rates than male applicants in all jurisdictions, except Camarillo and Simi Valley (Table 53).

Table 53: Approval Rates by Gender (2003) Total Applications Male Applicants Female Applicants Area % % % Total1 Total Total Approved Approved Approved Camarillo 2,874 61.7% 516 68.2% 506 68.0% Fillmore 564 59.8% 131 61.8% 94 63.8% Moorpark 1,621 59.6% 391 64.5% 210 68.1% Ojai 258 66.3% 65 64.6% 54 75.9% Oxnard 6,650 59.0% 1,978 63.3% 1,022 67.9% Port Hueneme 1,109 63.5% 366 67.2% 217 70.0% Santa Paula 709 61.1% 203 59.6% 114 66.7% Simi Valley 5,594 62.5% 1,476 69.4% 977 67.8% Thousand Oaks 6,566 63.3% 1,457 67.2% 1,052 69.2% Ventura 3,699 59.4% 850 65.5% 659 65.6% Unincorporated County 3,828 61.5% 871 67.3% 587 69.7% County Total 33,472 61.3% 8,304 66.1% 5,492 68.1% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003. Note: 1. Total Applications includes joint applicants and applicants who chose not to disclose gender information.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 97

Table 54: Approval Rates by Gender (2008) Total Applications Male Applicants Female Applicants Area % % % Total1 Total Total Approved Approved Approved Camarillo 1,023 57.3% 227 65.2% 170 65.9% Fillmore 190 53.2% 56 58.9% 21 52.4% Moorpark 634 60.6% 161 55.9% 80 67.5% Ojai 114 50.0% 29 58.6% 26 46.2% Oxnard 2,811 51.1% 919 51.3% 513 54.4% Port Hueneme 539 55.1% 152 52.6% 105 57.1% Santa Paula 287 56.4% 89 57.3% 48 70.8% Simi Valley 1,943 54.4% 552 58.0% 283 56.2% Thousand Oaks 2,228 58.0% 570 56.7% 374 64.4% Ventura 1,565 56.6% 413 58.6% 268 61.9% Unincorporated County 1,356 54.1% 376 52.1% 237 62.0% County Total 12,690 55.1% 3,544 55.6% 2,125 60.0% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008. Note: 1. Total Applications includes joint applicants and applicants who chose not to disclose gender information.

Low/Moderate Income Neighborhoods

HMDA data may be used to measure lending activities in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Based on the Census, HMDA defines the income levels of census tracts as follows:

• Low Income Tract – Tract Median Income < 50% County AMI • Moderate Income Tract – Tract Median Income between 51 and 80% County AMI • Middle Income Tract – Tract Median Income between 81 and 120% County AMI • Upper Income Tract – Tract Median Income > 120% County AMI

According to HMDA data, approval rates for applicants from low and moderate income tracts were only slightly lower than overall approval rates (Figure 11 and Figure 12). Approximately 22 percent of loan applicants (2,787 applicants) were categorized as living in low or moderate income census tracts in 2008. About 55 percent of all loan applications were approved, while 51 percent of applications from low and moderate income census tracts were approved (Table 56). The same percentage of loan applications (22 percent) came from households who resided in low or moderate income census tracts in 2003. About 60 percent of the applications from these tracts were approved, compared to 61 percent of total loan applications (Table 55).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 98

Figure 11: Approval Rates in Low/Mod Areas (2003)

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Approval Rate Approval

20%

10%

0% Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Thousand Oaks Ventura Unincorporated County Jurisdictions Overall Approval Rate Approval Rate in Low/Mod Areas

Figure 12: Approval Rates in Low/Mod Areas (2008)

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% Approval Rate Approval

20%

10%

0% Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Port Hueneme Santa Paula Simi Valley Thousand Oaks Ventura Unincorporated County Jurisdiction Overa ll Approva l Ra te Approval Rate in Low/Mod Areas

Oxnard had the most applications from low and moderate income neighborhoods in 2008, with more than three times the number of the next closest area (1,337 compared to 444 in the Unincorporated County). In contrast, Camarillo, Moorpark, and Ojai did not have any applicants from low or moderate income neighborhoods. Of the cities with applicants from low and moderate income tracts, Simi Valley had the lowest approval rate (43 percent) and Santa Paula had the highest approval rate (59 percent).

In 2003, Oxnard again had the most applications from low and moderate income census tracts. The cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, and Ojai had no applicants from low and moderate income neighborhoods. Of the cities with applicants from low and moderate income neighborhoods, Simi Valley reported the lowest number of applicants (166 applicants) followed by Fillmore (260 applicants) and Thousand Oaks (447 applicants).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 99

Table 55: Lending to Low/Moderate Income Neighborhoods (2003) Total Low/Mod Neighborhoods Area # % Approved # % Approved Camarillo 2,874 61.7% 0 0.0% Fillmore 564 59.8% 260 63.1% Moorpark 1,621 59.6% 0 0.0% Ojai 258 66.3% 0 0.0% Oxnard 6,660 58.9% 3,689 57.9% Port Hueneme 1,109 63.5% 846 64.3% Santa Paula 722 60.0% 512 59.0% Simi Valley 5,742 62.8% 166 56.0% Thousand Oaks 6,566 63.3% 447 65.8% Ventura 3,669 59.4% 750 64.5% Unincorporated County 3,828 61.5% 851 57.0% County Total 33,613 61.3% 7,521 59.9% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Table 56: Lending to Low/Moderate Income Neighborhoods (2008) Total Low/Mod Neighborhoods Area # % Approved # % Approved Camarillo 1,023 57.3% 0 0.0% Fillmore 190 53.2% 81 50.6% Moorpark 634 60.6% 0 0.0% Ojai 114 50.0% 0 0.0% Oxnard 2,811 51.1% 1,337 51.0% Port Hueneme 539 55.1% 359 53.1% Santa Paula 287 56.4% 180 58.9% Simi Valley 1,943 54.4% 37 43.2% Thousand Oaks 2,228 58.0% 93 51.6% Ventura 1,500 59.1% 256 52.3% Unincorporated County 1,356 54.1% 444 46.2% County Total 12,625 55.1% 2,787 51.0% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Home Improvement Loans

In 2003, 3,434 households applied for conventional home improvement loans (Table 57). As was the case with conventional home purchase loans, fewer households applied for home improvement loans in 2008. Only 2,137 households applied for these loans in 2008 (Table 58).

Overall, the approval rate for home improvement loans was lower than the rate of approval for home purchase loans. Countywide, only 52 percent of home improvement loan

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 100 applications were approved in 2003. This rate dropped even further in 2008 to 37 percent. The drop in approval rates may be explained by the nature of home improvement loans. Most home improvement loans are second loans and therefore more difficult to qualify due to high income-to-debt ratios. Given the current mortgage lending crisis, getting a second loan for home improvements is even more difficult than before.

Table 57: Disposition of Home Improvement Loan Applications (2003) Conventional Home Improvement Loans 2 3 Jurisdiction Total Approvals Denials Other Purchased 1 Applications # % # % # % # % Camarillo 271 152 56.1% 75 27.7% 41 15.1% 31.1% Fillmore 98 46 46.9% 36 36.7% 14 14.3% 22.0% Moorpark 183 96 52.5% 44 24.0% 39 21.3% 42.2% Ojai 38 20 52.6% 8 21.1% 8 21.1% 25.3% Oxnard 646 279 43.2% 215 33.3% 133 20.6% 192.9% Port Hueneme 110 60 54.5% 32 29.1% 12 10.9% 6 5.5% Santa Paula 110 55 50.0% 35 31.8% 18 16.4% 2 1.8% Simi Valley 688 384 55.8% 160 23.3% 126 18.3% 18 2.6% Thousand Oaks 592 343 57.9% 139 23.5% 90 15.2% 20 3.4% Ventura 355 198 55.8% 99 27.9% 53 14.9% 51.4% Unincorporated 343 167 48.7% 94 27.4% 65 19.0% 17 5.0% County Total 3,434 1,800 52.4% 937 27.3% 599 17.4% 98 2.9% Notes: 1. Total applications” includes all columns in this table, plus loans purchased, preapproval denied, and preapproval loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant. Thus, “Approved”, “Denied”, and “Other” do not equal 100% of the “Total Applications”. 2. Approved loans include both originated loans and loans approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants. Originated loans are those approved by the lenders and purchased by the applicants 3. Other includes applications withdrawn by applicant or incomplete applications. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 101

Table 58: Disposition of Home Improvement Loan Applications (2008) Conventional Home Improvement Loans 2 3 Jurisdiction Total Approvals Denials Other Purchased 1 Applications # % # % # % # % Camarillo 190 79 41.6% 50 26.3% 27 14.2% 3417.9% Fillmore 58 24 41.4% 17 29.3% 10 17.2% 712.1% Moorpark 117 44 37.6% 38 32.5% 13 11.1% 2218.8% Ojai 32 9 28.1% 6 18.8% 6 18.8% 1134.4% Oxnard 406 117 28.8% 154 37.9% 66 16.3% 6917.0% Port Hueneme 62 22 35.5% 20 32.3% 9 14.5% 11 17.7% Santa Paula 97 34 35.1% 35 36.1% 18 18.6% 10 10.3% Simi Valley 368 142 38.6% 120 32.6% 53 14.4% 53 14.4% Thousand Oaks 363 153 42.1% 96 26.4% 47 12.9% 67 18.5% Ventura 239 88 36.8% 65 27.2% 42 17.6% 4418.4% Unincorporated 205 78 38.0% 54 26.3% 42 20.5% 31 15.1% County Total 2,137 790 37.0% 655 30.7% 333 15.6% 359 16.8% Notes: 1. Total applications” includes all columns in this table, plus loans purchased, preapproval denied, and preapproval loans approved by the lender but not accepted by the applicant. Thus, “Approved”, “Denied”, and “Other” do not equal 100% of the “Total Applications”. 2. Approved loans include both originated loans and loans approved by the lenders but not accepted by the applicants. Originated loans are those approved by the lenders and purchased by the applicants 3. Other includes applications withdrawn by applicant or incomplete applications. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

C. Government-Backed Home Loans

Government-backed financing represents a potential alternative source of financing for those with difficulty qualifying for a loan in the conventional market. With the income and home price restrictions for government-backed loans, few households in Southern California have been able to take advantage of such financing resources since the home prices escalated in recent years. As home prices adjust to lower levels, government-backed lending could be further marketed in Ventura County by lenders.

Home Purchase Loans

In 2008, 2,777 applications for government-backed loans were submitted countywide, compared to the 12,690 applications for conventional home purchase loans. Among households earning less than 50 percent of AMI, the approval rate for government-backed loans was 31 percent, substantially lower than the 54 percent approval rate the applicants from this income category received for conventional loans (Table 60). In fact, applicants

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 102 from all income groups had higher approval rates for conventional home purchase loans than for government-backed purchase loans.

In 2003, significantly fewer Ventura County households (543 households) applied for government backed home purchase loans. Of these applications, 47 percent (254 households) were approved and just four percent (21 households) were denied (Table 59).

Over 15 percent of the applications for government-backed loans were submitted by households earning more than 100 percent of AMI. Since fewer government-backed loans were processed countywide, the approval rate among all income levels exhibited more fluctuation than that of conventional loans. The low number of applications and relatively low approval rates indicate that government-backed home loans are not making a substantial contribution to home ownership within the region, particularly for those households earning less than 100 percent of AMI.

Table 59: Approval Rates for Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans by Income (2003) Applicant Income (% AMI) Jurisdiction 50- 80- 100- Not Total <50% >120% <80% <100% <120% Available Camarillo 100.0% 100.0% 72.7% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 63.6% Fillmore 0.0% 66.7% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 28.6% 47.6% Moorpark 50.0% 50.0% 75.0% 0.0% 75.0% 0.0% 50.0% Ojai 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Oxnard 88.0% 57.1% 44.1% 52.9% 55.6% 10.5% 44.9% Port Hueneme 100.0% 76.9% 50.0% 100.0% 33.3% 6.3% 46.8% Santa Paula 83.3% 63.6% 60.0% 60.0% 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% Simi Valley 80.0% 53.8% 46.2% 40.0% 66.7% 0.0% 38.7% Thousand Oaks 0.0% 78.6% 37.5% 71.4% 85.7% 23.8% 52.6% Ventura 0.0% 61.5% 71.4% 0.0% 60.0% 0.0% 51.1% Unincorporated County 100.0% 60.0% 75.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 40.9% Total County 82.2% 63.5% 53.8% 53.7% 62.2% 10.3% 46.8% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 103

Table 60: Approval Rates of Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans by Income (2008) Applicant Income (% AMI) Total Jurisdiction 50- 80- 100- Not <50% >120% <80% <100% <120% Available Camarillo 0.0% 54.5% 58.3% 56.5% 55.8% 20.0% 55.1% Fillmore 0.0% 54.5% 71.4% 60.0% 61.1% 0.0% 53.8% Moorpark 0.0% 54.5% 62.5% 54.1% 48.7% 25.0% 50.7% Ojai 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 30.0% Oxnard 28.6% 53.6% 53.0% 53.4% 57.0% 13.5% 51.6% Port Hueneme 37.5% 60.0% 50.0% 47.6% 47.4% 9.1% 46.5% Santa Paula 41.7% 57.5% 69.6% 55.0% 36.8% 0.0% 53.4% Simi Valley 33.3% 43.3% 67.2% 57.1% 52.4% 20.0% 53.1% Thousand Oaks 20.0% 50.0% 45.8% 63.2% 55.6% 14.3% 51.6% Ventura 41.7% 61.5% 52.1% 56.1% 63.4% 0.0% 55.7% Unincorporated County 100.0% 41.4% 48.1% 47.3% 49.1% 11.1% 47.0% Total County 30.5% 53.4% 54.9% 54.0% 54.1% 13.2% 51.6% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Home Improvement Loans

Twenty Ventura County households applied for government-backed home improvement financing in 2008 (Table 61). Of those applications, 11 were approved. In 2003, only one Ventura County household applied for such home improvement financing. This applicant was denied.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 104

Table 61: Disposition of Government-Backed Home Improvement Loans by Income (2008) Applicant Income (% AMI) Jurisdiction 50- 80- 100- Not Total <50% >120% <80% <100% <120% Available Camarillo 01000 0 1 Fillmore 00000 0 0 Moorpark 00000 0 0 Ojai 00000 0 0 Oxnard 21030 0 6 Port Hueneme 10000 0 1 Santa Paula 00100 0 1 Simi Valley 20021 1 6 Thousand Oaks 00101 0 2 Ventura 01000 0 1 Unincorporated County 20000 0 2 Total County 73252 1 20 Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Race Differences by Income of Applicant

Because the total number of government-backed loan applications was low in 2008 (Table 62), approval rates analyzed by ethnic group and income did not exhibit strong trends.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 105

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 106

Table 62: Approval Rates of Government-Backed Home Purchase Loans (Race and Income) (2008) Approval Rate by Income District Ethnicity Total <80% 80-120% >120% Not Available AMI AMI AMI Asian 75.0% 0.0% 100.0% 71.4% 0.0% Black or African 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% American Thousand Oaks Hispanic or Latino 39.3% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 100.0% Non-Hispanic 56.4% 57.9% 51.9% 60.0% 0.0% White Not Applicable 33.3% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian 60.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% Black or African 66.7% 50.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% American Ventura Hispanic or Latino 71.8% 85.7% 62.5% 66.7% 0.0% Non-Hispanic 57.0% 50.0% 56.3% 63.0% 0.0% White Not Applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian 47.1% 0.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% Black or African 37.5% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0% American Unincorporated Hispanic or Latino 52.7% 46.2% 54.3% 56.0% 0.0% County Non-Hispanic 46.8% 33.3% 43.9% 49.4% 100.0% White Not Applicable 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Asian 54.9% 33.3% 61.3% 56.3% 0.0% Black or African 54.8% 33.3% 66.7% 60.0% 0.0% American Ventura County Hispanic or Latino 52.3% 50.9% 55.1% 51.2% 26.3% Total Non-Hispanic 54.8% 49.3% 50.5% 60.5% 23.1% White Not Applicable 57.1% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008. Notes: 1. The OMB’s December 2000 provisional guidance and appendices established new data collection procedures for race and ethnicity. Under the new policy, HUD must offer individuals, who are responding to agency data requests for race, the option of selecting one or more of five racial categories. HUD must also treat ethnicity as a category separate from race, and change the terminology for certain racial and ethnic groups. However, HMDA data using the new race and ethnicity reporting guidelines is not available. For the purposes of this report, the terminology for the various racial and ethnic groups has been amended; but, ethnicity has not been treated as a separate category. 2. A multi-ethnic household is listed only under the race/ethnicity of the individual designated as the head of household. A significant and increasing number of marriages/household creation in Ventura County reflect unions between persons of distinct racial/ethnic identities, primarily between Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites. This figure may account for up to 30 to 40 percent of marriages recorded by the County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 107

D. Performance by Lender

Table 63 summarizes the top lenders in Ventura County. These lenders accounted for 49 percent (85,144 applications) of all loan applications in the County in 2003 and 59 percent (23,480 loans) of all applications in 2008.

Table 63: Top Lenders in Ventura County 2003 2008 % of % of # of # of Lender County Lender County Applications* Applications* Total Total Countrywide Bank, FSB 20,423 11.7% Countrywide Bank, FSB 5,754 14.4% Washington Mutual Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, 14,400 8.3% 4,700 11.8% FA N.A. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage 11,518 6.6% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 3,659 9.2% Bank of America, N.A. 10,199 5.9% Bank of America, N.A. 2,448 6.1% ABN AMRO Mortgage 5,706 3.3% CITIMortgage, Inc 2,129 5.3% Group, Inc. GMAC Mortgage 5,527 3.2% Wachovia Mortgage FSB 1,359 3.4% Corporation CHASE Manhattan Mortgage 5,303 3.0% GMAC Mortgage LLC 1,165 2.9% Corp Ameriquest Mortgage 4,200 2.4% Flagstar Bank 861 2.2% Company Beneficial Company CITImortgage 4,019 2.3% 766 1.9% LLC First Tennessee Bank, World Savings Bank 3,849 2.2% 639 1.6% N.A. Top 10 Lenders Total 85,144 48.9% Top 10 Lenders Total 23,480 58.8% Total for Ventura Total for Ventura County 174,235 100% 40,002 100% County Notes: * = Includes conventional and government-backed home purchase, home improvements, and refinance loan applications. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003 and 2008.

The top lender in 2008, Countrywide Bank, FSB, accounted for 14 percent of all loan applications, followed by JP Morgan Chase Bank and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., with 12 percent and nine percent of all loan applications, respectively.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 108

Figure 13: Top Lenders in Ventura County (2008)

Countrywide Bank, FSB 14%

JPMorgan Chase Bank, All Other Banks N.A. 41% 12%

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 9%

First Tennessee Bank, Bank of America, N.A. N.A. 6% 2% Beneficial Company LLC CITIMortgage, Inc 2% 5% Flagstar Bank GMAC 2% Mortgage LLC Wachovia Mortgage FSB 3% 4%

In 2003, the top lender in Ventura County was also Countrywide Bank, FSB, which accounted for 12 percent of all applications in the County, followed by Washington Mutual Bank, FA and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, at eight percent and seven percent, respectively.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 109

Figure 14: Top Lenders in Ventura County (2003)

Countrywide Bank, FSB 12%

Washington Mutual Bank, FA 8%

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage 7% All Other Banks 51%

Bank of America, N.A. 6%

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. 3% GMAC Mortgage CHASE Manhattan Corporation Mortgage Corp 3% 3% Ameriquest Mortgage World Savings Bank CITIMORTGAGE Company 2% 2% 3%

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 110

Table 64: Disposition of Loans by Lending Institution (2003) Withdrawn or Lender Name Approved Denied Total Closed Apps. # % # % # % Countrywide Bank, FSB 20,423 10,294 50.4% 276 1.4% 1,449 7.1% Washington Mutual Bank, FA 14,400 10,391 72.2% 1,511 10.5% 390 2.7% Wells Fargo Home Mortgage 11,518 10,417 90.4% 543 4.7% 396 3.4% Bank of America, N.A. 10,199 5,769 56.6% 644 6.3% 626 6.1% ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc 5,706 4,505 79.0% 134 2.4% 581 10.2% GMAC Mortgage Corp 5,527 3,060 55.4% 699 12.7% 996 18.0% CHASE Manhattan Mortgage Corp 5,303 4,044 76.3% 386 7.3% 113 2.1% Ameriquest Mortgage Company 4,200 478 11.4% 859 20.5% 2,863 68.2% CITIMortgage, Inc 4,019 2,375 59.1% 99 2.5% 319 7.9% World Savings Bank 3,849 2,557 66.4% 409 10.6% 706 18.3% Top 10 Lenders 85,144 53,890 63.3% 5,560 6.5% 8,439 9.9% Total All Lenders 174,235 107,765 61.9% 15,210 8.7% 19,493 11.2% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003. Notes: Total Applications includes the following types of loans, which are not represented in the table: purchased, preapproval denied, preapproval approved not accepted, and missing/invalid data.

Table 65: Disposition of Loans by Lending Institution (2008) Withdrawn or Lender Name Approved Denied Total Closed Apps. # % # % # % Countrywide Bank, FSB 5,754 2,952 51.3% 1,013 17.6% 703 12.2% JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 4,700 951 20.2% 450 9.6% 111 2.4% Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 3,659 2,328 63.6% 553 15.1% 772 21.1% Bank of America, N.A. 2,448 1,589 64.9% 443 18.1% 272 11.1% CITIMortgage, Inc 2,129 660 31.0% 203 9.5% 347 16.3% Wachovia Mortgage, FSB 1,359 534 39.3% 341 25.1% 261 19.2% GMAC Mortgage LLC 1,165 140 12.0% 216 18.5% 435 37.3% Flagstar Bank 861 648 75.3% 126 14.6% 1 0.1% Beneficial Company LLC 766 17 2.2% 693 90.5% 56 7.3% First Tennessee Bank, N.A. 639 447 70.0% 189 29.6% 2 0.2% Top 10 Lenders 23,480 10,266 43.7% 4,227 18.0% 2,960 12.6% Total All Lenders 40,002 18,342 45.9% 8,322 20.8% 5,235 13.1% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008. Notes: Total Applications includes the following types of loans, which are not represented in the table: purchased, preapproval denied, preapproval approved not accepted, and missing/invalid data.

Approximately four times as many households applied for loans in 2003 than in 2008 (174,235 loans in 2003 versus 40,002 loans in 2008). The approval rates for the top ten lenders fluctuated a great deal by jurisdiction during this time period, however, the County as a whole recorded a large decrease in the number of approved loans (53,890 approved loans in

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 111

2003 versus 10,266 approved loans in 2008) by Ventura’s top lenders. Approval rates in 2008 for the County’s top lenders ranged from two percent (Beneficial Company LLC) to 75 percent (Flagstar Bank). As shown, lending has been tightened not only overall, but by individual lenders. In 2003, Wells Fargo had a 90 percent approval rate, which dropped to 64 percent in 2008. The high approval rates by Wells Fargo, Washington Mutual, ABN AMRO, and CHASE in 2003 were reflective of the loose underwriting criteria during the mortgage lending “frenzy.” While high loan approval rates generally indicate the availability of financing, it can also be a cause for concern. During the past few years, an overabundance of mortgage financing with liberal underwriting criteria, combined with the overly aggressive marketing of mortgage financing to households who could not really afford to purchase homes, have contributed to the current credit crunch and foreclosure crisis.

CRA Rating

Depending on the type of institution and total assets, a lender may be examined by different supervising agencies for its CRA performance. A search was performed on the databases for the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). CRA ratings are provided for the main or regional headquarters of the financial institutions. Ratings for the top ten lenders are presented in Table 66.

Table 66: CRA Ratings for Top 10 Lenders in Ventura County Lender Name Rating Rating Institution Year Countrywide Bank, FSB Needs to Improve OTS 2008 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Outstanding OCC 2007 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Outstanding OCC 1998 Bank of America, N.A. Outstanding OCC 2001 CITIMortgage, Inc N/A* Wachovia Mortgage, FSB Outstanding OTS 2005 GMAC Mortgage, LLC N/A* Flagstar Bank Satisfactory OTS 2007 Beneficial Company, LLC N/A* First Tennessee Bank, N.A. Satisfactory OCC 2005 Source: FFIEC Interagency CRA Rating Search, (http://www.ffiec.gov/craratings/default.aspx), 2009. * Indicates bank did not receive a rating Note: The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the federal financial institution supervisory agencies, in connection with their examinations of certain depository institutions, to assess the institutions' CRA performance. A financial institution's performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its community is evaluated in the context of information about the institution (capacity, constraints and business strategies), its community (demographic and economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities), and its competitors and peers. Upon completion of a CRA examination, an overall CRA Rating is assigned using a four-tiered rating system. These ratings are: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve, and Substantial Noncompliance.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 112

Among the top ten lenders active in Ventura County, Wells Fargo, Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Bank of America, N.A., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. were all awarded an “Outstanding” rating. Flagstar Bank and First Tennessee Bank received a “Satisfactory” rating, while Countrywide Bank, FSB received a “Needs to Improve” CRA rating.

E. Mortgage Refinancing

At the peak of the housing market boom, many households purchased homes that were over their financial means but relied on the strategy of refinancing to lower housing costs at a later date. In 2003, due to the historically low interest rates available, refinancing mortgages were seen as an attractive option for many households to lower monthly housing costs. During that time, Ventura County residents were much more likely to file a mortgage refinancing application than a home purchase application. The number of Ventura County residents who applied to refinance their mortgages nearly doubled the number of residents who applied for home purchase loans. In 2003, 134,468 Ventura County households applied to refinance, with the most applications coming from the cities of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Oxnard (Table 67). Over one-half (62 percent) of these applications were approved and eight percent were denied.

By 2008, however, the collapse of the housing market and resulting credit crunch made refinancing extremely difficult. As shown in Table 68, just 21,417 households in Ventura County applied to refinance their homes in 2008. Again the cities of Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, and Oxnard had the highest number of applicants. Approval rates for home refinancing, however, dropped significantly since 2003, with just 44 percent of all applications approved in Ventura County.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 113

Table 67: Disposition of Conventional Mortgage Refinancing Applications (2003) Withdrawn Loans Total Approved Denied Jurisdiction or Closed Purchased # # % # % # % # % Camarillo 11,949 7,597 63.6% 843 7.1% 1,273 10.7% 2,236 18.7% Fillmore 2,269 1,32058.2% 226 10.0% 361 15.9% 36216.0% Moorpark 7,513 4,741 6.1% 582 7.7% 792 10.5% 1,398 18.6% Ojai 1,394 886 63.6% 138 9.9% 153 11.0% 217 15.6% Oxnard 19,289 11,445 59.3% 2,084 10.8% 2,667 13.8% 3,093 16.0% Port Hueneme 2,918 1,748 59.9% 295 10.1% 423 14.5% 452 15.5% Santa Paula 2,849 1,704 59.8% 315 11.1% 403 14.1% 427 15.0% Simi Valley 25,834 16,122 62.4% 2,055 8.0% 3,088 12.0% 4,569 17.7% Thousand Oaks 29,414 18,780 63.8% 2,156 7.3% 2,886 9.8% 5,592 19.0% Ventura 15,993 10,194 63.7% 1,152 7.2% 1,745 10.9% 2,902 18.1% Unincorporated County 15,066 9,379 62.3% 1,236 8.2% 1,739 11.5% 2,712 18.0% Total County 134,488 83,916 62.4% 11,082 8.2% 15,530 11.5% 23,960 17.8% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Table 68: Disposition of Conventional Mortgage Refinancing Applications (2008) Withdrawn Loans Total Approved Denied Jurisdiction or Closed Purchased # # % # % # % # % Camarillo 1,996 905 45.3% 433 21.7% 290 14.5% 368 18.4% Fillmore 388 10827.8% 130 33.5% 73 18.8% 7719.8% Moorpark 1,133 575 50.8% 225 19.9% 121 10.7% 212 18.7% Ojai 259 11845.6% 40 15.4% 42 16.2% 5922.8% Oxnard 3,238 1,156 35.7% 1,009 31.2% 461 14.2% 61218.9% Port Hueneme 679 263 38.7% 226 33.3% 75 11.0% 115 16.9% Santa Paula 593 234 39.5% 181 30.5% 75 12.6% 103 17.4% Simi Valley 3,906 1,774 45.4% 855 21.9% 528 13.5% 749 19.2% Thousand Oaks 4,437 2,132 48.1% 853 19.2% 560 12.6% 892 20.1% Ventura 2,496 1,154 46.2% 559 22.4% 297 11.9% 48619.5% Unincorporated County 2,292 1,014 44.2% 516 22.5% 318 13.9% 444 19.4% Total County 21,417 9,433 44.0% 5,027 23.5% 2,840 13.3% 4,117 19.2% Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

Aggressive lending practices resulted in many “innovative” loan terms that allowed many households to purchase a home during the peak of the housing market. Loans with zero downpayments, negative amortization11, short-term low fixed rates, and variable rates, among

11 In negative amortization, a borrower pays monthly mortgage payments that are lower than the required interest payments and include no principal payments. The shortage in monthly payments is added to the principal loan. Therefore, the longer the borrower holds that loan, the more they owe the lender despite making monthly payments. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 114

other financing techniques misled many regarding the affordability of home ownership. Many homebuyers were under the false assumption that their homes would continue to increase in value and refinancing to more favorable loan terms later would always be available as an option. However, when the inflated market imploded in 2007, many households began to face increased monthly payments on homes with decreased values. The credit market collapsed and refinancing to lower interest rates became increasingly stringent. As shown in Table 69, approval rates for refinancing in 2008 were lower for minority applicants, especially for Blacks. In 2003, approval rates for refinancing were lower for Black and Hispanic applicants, but Asian applicants were approved for loans at rates equal to Non-Hispanic Whites (Table 69). When refinancing is not an available option, many homeowners who could not afford the higher variable-rate loans were faced with foreclosures.

Table 69: Refinancing of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2003) Race Total Applications Approval Rate Asian 5,424 70.0% Black 1,120 63.7% Hispanic 17,034 63.3% Non-Hispanic White 68,295 70.9% Total* 134,468 62.4% * = Includes other race categories not displayed in table Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2003.

Table 70: Refinancing of Conventional Home Purchase Loans (2008) Race Total Applications Approval Rate Asian 790 48.7% Black 181 34.8% Hispanic 3,290 37.1% Non-Hispanic White 11,175 51.8% Total* 16,082 48.3% * = Includes other race categories not displayed in table Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

More Ventura County households (721 households) applied for government-backed home refinancing loans than any other type of government-backed financing in 2008. Approximately 21 percent of these applicants were approved, while 34 percent were denied. In 2003, 1,084 households applied for FHA home refinance loans. Of these applications, 52 percent were approved and just five percent were denied.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 115

F. Purchased Loans

Secondary marketing is the term used for pricing, buying, selling, securitizing and trading residential mortgages. The secondary market is an informal process of different financial institutions buying and selling home mortgages. The secondary market exists to provide a venue for lending institutions to raise the capital required to make additional loans. In the 1960s, as interest rates became unstable, housing starts declined, and the nation faced capital shortages as many regions, including California, had more demand for mortgage credit than the lenders could fund.

The need for new sources of capital prompted Congress to reorganize the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) into two entities: a private corporation (today's FNMA) and a government agency, the Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA). In 1970, Congress chartered the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) to purchase conventional loans. Both FHLMC and FNMA have the same goals: to increase the liquidity of the mortgage market and make homeownership more widely available to the average citizen. The two organizations work to standardize the documentation, underwriting, and financing of home loans nationwide. They purchase loans from originators, hold them, and issue their own debt to replenish their cash. They are, essentially, very large, massive savings and loan organizations. These two organizations set the standards for the purchase of home loans by private lenders in the U.S.

Fair Housing Concerns

During the peak of the housing market (2000-2006), the practice of selling mortgage loans by the originators (lenders that initially provided the loans to the borrowers) to other lenders/investors was prevalent. Predatory lending was rampant, with lenders utilizing liberal underwriting criteria or falsified documents to push loan sales to people who could not afford the loans. The lenders were able to minimize their financial risks by immediately selling the loans to other lenders or to investors in the global market.

Table 71 shows the loans purchased in each jurisdiction of Ventura County, as well as the race/ethnicity of each applicant. According to HMDA data, countywide, 4,208 loans were purchased in 2008. Overall, Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest percentage of loans purchased, with 73 percent, followed by Hispanic applicants (15 percent), Asian applicants (seven percent) and Black applicants (1 percent). However, in some jurisdictions, including Fillmore and Santa Paula, Hispanics actually had the highest proportion of loans purchased.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 116

Table 71: Percent of Loans Purchased by Area and Race of Applicant Percent of Loans Purchased* Loans Non- Area Purchased Asian Black Hispanic Hispanic White Camarillo 109 6.4% 0.9% 7.3% 81.7% Fillmore 18 5.6% 0.0% 50.0% 33.3% Moorpark 51 3.9% 0.0% 9.8% 86.3% Ojai 17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Oxnard 214 13.1% 1.4% 30.8% 50.0% Port Hueneme 52 9.6% 1.9% 7.7% 78.8% Santa Paula 26 0.0% 0.0% 53.8% 46.2% Simi Valley 203 9.9% 2.0% 7.9% 73.9% Thousand Oaks 223 4.5% 1.8% 4.9% 85.2% Ventura 126 3.2% 0.8% 19.0% 73.8% Unincorporated County 148 6.8% 0.7% 13.5% 75.7% Total County 1,187 7.3% 1.3% 14.9% 72.5% * = Percentages may not equal 100 percent since total loans purchased also includes other race categories not displayed in table. Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data, 2008.

G. Sub-Prime Lending Market

In general, lending institutions are divided into two categories based on the type of loans or mortgages they offer, prime and subprime. According to the Federal Reserve, prime mortgages are offered to persons with excellent credit and employment history and income adequate to support the loan amount. Sub-prime loans are loans to borrowers who have less- than-perfect credit history, poor employment history, or other factors such as limited income. By providing loans to those who do not meet the credit standards for borrowers in the prime market, sub-prime lending can and does serve a critical role in increasing levels of homeownership. Households that are interested in buying a home but have blemishes in their credit record, insufficient credit history, or non-traditional credit sources, may be otherwise unable to purchase a home. The sub-prime loan market offers these borrowers opportunities to obtain loans that they would be unable to realize in the prime loan market.

Sub-prime lenders generally have interest rates that are higher than those in the prime market, and often lack the regulatory oversight required for prime lenders because they are not owned by regulated financial institutions. Unlike banks and savings and loans, which must submit regular regulatory compliance audits and whose activities are overseen by a variety of institutions such as the FDIC and OTS, many subprime lenders are not subject to rigorous oversight. Historically, independent mortgage companies did most of the subprime lending in the United States. However, over the last decade, an increasing number of large banks such as Citibank, Countrywide, and Washington Mutual have entered the subprime market either directly or through the acquisition of other financial institutions.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 117

Though the subprime market usually follows the same guiding principles as the prime market, a number of specific risk factors are associated with this market. According to a joint HUD/Department of the Treasury report, subprime lending generally has the following characteristics:12

• Higher Risk: Lenders experience higher loan defaults and losses by subprime borrowers than by prime borrowers.

• Lower Loan Amounts: On average, loans in the subprime mortgage market are smaller than loans in the prime market.

• Higher Costs to originate: Subprime loans may be more costly to originate than prime loans since they often require additional review of credit history, a higher rate of rejected or withdrawn applications, and fixed costs, such as appraisals, that represent a higher percentage of a smaller loan.

• Faster Prepayments: Subprime mortgages tend to be prepaid at a much faster rate than prime mortgages.

• Higher Fees: Subprime loans tend to have significantly higher fees due to the factors listed above.

While sub-prime lending cannot in and of itself be equated with predatory lending, studies have shown a high incidence of predatory lending in the sub-prime market. Unlike in the prime lending market, overly high approval rates in the sub-prime market is a potential cause for concern when the target clients are considered high risk. High approval rates may indicate aggressive lending practices.

HUD annually identifies a list of lenders that specialize in subprime home lending. The most recent HUD Suprime Lender List was produced in 2005. According to the 2005 list, two of the top ten lenders in Ventura County -- CITImortgage and Wells Fargo Financial, California -- are subprime lenders. Subprime lenders tend to have low approval rates, high rates of closed or withdrawn applications, and a strong presence in low and moderate income and minority concentrated neighborhoods. CITImortgage and Wells Fargo Funding did not exhibit these patterns in the 2008 HMDA data. And, real estate news from 2009 have indicated that both of these institutions had relatively low default rates—3.4 percent for Wells Fargo and less than one percent for CITImortgage.13

HMDA data do not include a field that identifies whether an individual loan application was a subprime home loan application. As such, analysis on this topic is difficult.

12 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Treasury, Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending. June 2000. 13 http://www.dqnews.com/Articles/2009/News/California/CA-Foreclosures/RRFor090422.aspx. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 118

H. Predatory Lending

Predatory lending is a growing fair housing issue. No studies or reports on predatory lending in Ventura County were analyzed as a part of this AI. However, the following discussion provides an overview of predatory lending, examples of predatory lending practices, recent trends, and existing and proposed regulations.

Defining Predatory Lending

Predatory lending involves abusive loan practices usually targeting minority and/or low income homeowners or those with less-than-perfect credit history. The predatory practices typically include high fees, hidden costs, and unnecessary insurance and larger repayments due in later years. One of the most common predatory lending practices is placing borrowers into higher interest rate loans than called for by their credit status. Although the borrowers may be eligible for a loan in the “prime” market, they are directed into more expensive and higher fee loans in the “sub-prime” market. In other cases, fraudulent appraisal data is used to mislead homebuyers into purchasing over-valued homes, or fraudulent or misrepresented financial data is used to encourage homebuyers into assuming a larger loan than can be afforded. Both cases almost inevitably result in foreclosure.

Predatory lending often is difficult to define, since a 15 percent interest rate on a loan to one person could be predatory while it might be appropriate for another, based on the borrower’s risk factors. During the last ten years, predatory lending has become a growing issue in California due to the State’s tight housing market, high home costs, and large minority population – typical targets for predatory lending practices.

The following set of general definitions for predatory lending is provided by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation:

• High Interest Rates: Interest rates that are more than seven to eight percentage points above market rates.

• Excessive Fees: For example, fees charged up-front without lowering the interest rate; costs and fees above normal.

• Negative Amortization: Repayment schedules set up so that the monthly payment fails to pay off accrued interest and actually increases the original amount borrowed.

• Balloon Payments: In this payment structure, the balance due on the mortgage must be paid at the end of the loan, usually 15 years. At the end of the loan, the balloon payment that is suddenly due will be a large sum of money, probably beyond one’s ability to repay, forcing the borrower to borrow more money to pay back the loan.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 119

• High Loan-to-Value (LTV) Loans: Loans that are more than 100 percent LTV may lock the borrower into additional debt.

• Credit Insurance: Life, accident, and health insurance should not be included as a condition of a loan. It will increase the total amount the borrower owes.

• Mandatory Arbitration: Loan contracts requiring mandatory, binding arbitration instead of the court system. Arbitration is more favorable to lenders than to consumers.

• High-Pressure Sales Tactics: Frequent calls and letters asking the borrower to refinance.14

Predatory lending has also penetrated the home improvement financing market. Seniors and minority homeowners are the usual targets. In general, home improvement financing is more difficult to obtain than home purchase financing. Many homeowners have a debt-to-income ratio that is too high to qualify for home improvement loans in the prime market and become targets of predatory lending in the sub-prime market. Seniors are often swindled into installing unnecessary devices or making unnecessary improvements that are bundled with unreasonable financing terms.

Data available to investigate the presence of predatory lending are extremely limited. At present, HMDA data are the most comprehensive data available for evaluating lending practices. However, as discussed before, HMDA data lack the financial details of the loan terms to conclude any kind of predatory lending. Efforts at the national level are pushing for increased reporting requirements in order to curb predatory lending.

Examples of Predatory Lending

As defined above, predatory lending includes a wide variety of improper practices. In fact, over 39 different types of predatory lending have been documented involving all aspects of the lending process, from origination to the collection of the loan.15 These practices typically target and steer low income, minorities, or the elderly to high-rate lenders.16

In particular, HUD has raised concern about two categories of improper or predatory lending practices. The first type, which generally is easier to identify, involves blatant fraud or acts of deception such as forging signatures or obtaining signatures on blank documents, falsifying loan applicant income or appraised value of the property, or employing bait and switch tactics.

14 “Don’t Borrow Trouble” Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 2002. 15 Bill Brennan of Atlanta Legal Aid, Testimony before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, March 16, 1998. 16 Testimony of Assistant Secretary for Housing/Federal Housing Commissioner William Apgar before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, May 24, 2000. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 120

A second type, which is often more difficult to identify, involves various manipulative practices that cause borrowers to enter into abusive loans. Common abusive loans include:

• Equity Stripping: This type of practice occurs when a loan is based on the equity of a home rather than the borrower’s ability to repay. This type of loan often has high fees, prepayment penalties, and different terms and conditions than a regular home loan.

• Packing: This involves the practice of adding credit insurance or other extras into the loan. The supplements to the loan are often very profitable to the lenders and are typically financed in a single up-front or balloon payment.

• Flipping: This practice is a form of equity stripping and happens when a lender convinces a borrower to repeatedly refinance a loan within a short period of time. The lender typically charges high points and fees each time as part of the mortgage.17

Protections against Predatory Lending

Predatory lenders who discriminate receive some scrutiny under the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which requires equal treatment in terms and conditions of housing opportunities and credit regardless of race, religion, color, national origin, family status, or disability. This applies to loan originators as well as the secondary market. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1972 requires equal treatment in loan terms and availability of credit for all of the above protected categories, as well as age, sex, and marital status. Lenders that engage in predatory lending would violate these acts, if they target Black, Hispanic or elderly households to buy higher priced and unnecessary loan products; treat loans for protected classes differently than those of comparably credit-worthy applicants; or have policies or practices that have a disproportionate effect on the protected classes.

In addition, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) promotes the informed use of consumer credit, through disclosure of loan costs and terms. To comply with this act, lenders must disclose information about payment schedules, prepayment penalties, and the total cost of credit. In 1994, Congress amended the TILA in response to abusive lending practices. The new legislation, referred to as the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), provides new information to protect borrowers. HOEPA identifies a specific class of high- cost mortgage loans that may put consumers at risk of losing their homes. HOEPA requires disclosure of information if the annual percentage rate (APR) is ten percentage points above the prime or if fees are above eight percent of the loan amount. HOEPA also prohibits balloon payments for short-term loans. In addition, for covered loans, HOEPA provides a warning if the lender has a lien on the borrower’s home and the borrower could lose the home if they default on the loan payment.18

17 Dan Tatar, Community Affairs Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, “Predatory Lending: The American Nightmare,” Marketwise, Winter 2001. 18 Federal Reserve Governor Edward M. Gramlich, “Predatory Lending” Cascade (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), Summer/Fall 2000. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 121

Several attempts have been made over the last decade by California law makers to pass legislation addressing predatory lending. Most of these efforts have been unsuccessful. However, a law (Senate Bill 537) signed by Governor Gray Davis provided a new funding mechanism for local district attorneys’ offices to establish special units to investigate and prosecute real estate fraud cases. The law enabled county governments to establish real estate fraud prosecution units.

In September 2001, California became the second state to pass a law banning predatory lending (AB 489; as amended AB 344). The law enables state regulators and the Attorney General to attempt to prevent "predatory" lending practices by authorizing the state to enforce and levy penalties against licensees that do not comply with the provisions of this bill. The law provides protections against predatory lending to consumers across the state as summarized below:

• Financing of Credit Insurance: On all home loans, the bill prohibits the financing of single premium credit insurance policies as part of a loan. Credit insurance policies on home loans may still be sold as long as they are paid off monthly like other insurance.

• Covered loans: The legislation's other protections apply to home loans with very high fees and rates when the total loan amount is $250,000 or below. For borrowers in these higher-cost home loans, the bill extends additional consumer protections against some of the most abusive practices.

• Financing of Points and Fees: The bill prohibits the financing of lender and broker fees beyond six percent of the original loan amount, minus the fees.

• Steering: The bill prohibits borrowers in covered loans from being steered or counseled into loans with rates above what is appropriate for their credit risk, according to the lender's classifications.

• Home Improvement Contracts: The bill prevents home improvement contractors from getting paid directly out of the proceeds of covered loans. The loan proceeds must go directly to the borrower, or otherwise must be paid out to an escrow account or to the borrower and contractor jointly only in increments with written certification that the work has been finished.

• Fiduciary Responsibility of Brokers: The legislation establishes that any mortgage broker providing a covered loan has a responsibility to protect the borrower's financial interests, regardless of any of the broker's other financial relationships (including their status as an agent of the lender), and that any violation of those duties constitutes a violation of the law.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 122

• Ability to Repay: The bill prohibits lenders from making a covered loan, knowing that the borrower cannot repay.

• Loan Flipping: The bill prohibits covered loans where there is no clear benefit to the borrower, taking into account the costs of the loans, but also the borrower's reasons for seeking it.

• Prepayment Penalties: When a prepayment penalty is included in a loan, the borrower must pay a penalty to refinance out of that loan into another loan within a certain time period. In the prime market, prepayment penalties are generally accompanied by a slightly lower interest rate on the loan. But in the subprime market, these penalties are commonly used to trap borrowers at higher interest rates than they should be paying or force them to pay an extra fee to receive a loan with a more reasonable interest rate. The bill sets restrictions on some of the worst abuses - limiting such penalties on covered loans to no longer than three years and requiring the originator to offer a choice of a loan without a prepayment penalty at least three days before closing.

• Balloon Payments: No balloon payments are allowed in the first five years of the loan, as in the federal Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (HOEPA).

• Negative Amortization: The principal amounts of second mortgages may not increase over the course of a covered loan.

• Prepaid Payments: Prepaid installments may not be financed into the loan, resulting in extra interest charges.

• Call Provisions: Call provisions, which permit the lender to call in the entire balance of the loan immediately, may not be included in covered loans.

• Interest Rate Changes upon Default: The interest rate may not increase as a result of the borrower defaulting.

• Encouragement of Default: A lender or broker may not encourage a consumer to default on the consumer's existing home loan when soliciting to refinance the consumer into a new covered loan.

• Disclosures: Originators of covered loans are required to provide borrowers with one page of disclosures about the availability of loan counseling services and other information about the loan.

Predatory lending and unsound investment practices, central to the current home foreclosure crisis, are resulting in a credit crunch that is spreading well beyond the housing market, now impacting the cost of credit for local government borrowing, as well as local property tax revenues. In response, the U.S. House passed legislation, HR3915, which would prohibit

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 123

certain predatory lending practices and make it easier for consumers to renegotiate predatory mortgage loans. The Senate introduced similar legislation in late 2007 (S2452). The Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (HR1728) was passed in the House in May 2009 and amends the Truth in Lending Act to specify duty of care standards for originators of residential mortgages. The law also prescribes minimum standards for residential mortgage loans, directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a grants program to provide legal assistance to low and moderate income homeowners and tenants, and prohibits specified practices, including:

• Certain prepayment penalties; • Single premium credit insurance; • Mandatory arbitration (except for reverse mortgages); • Mortgage loan provisions that waive a statutory cause of action by the consumer; and • Mortgages with negative amortization.

In addition to anti-predatory lending laws, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act was enacted in 2007 and allows for the exclusion of income realized as a result of modification of the terms of a mortgage or foreclosure on a taxpayer’s principal residence.

As of August 2009, Assembly Bill 260 was being considered by the California legislature. This bill is intended to stop certain predatory lending practices believed to have contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis.

I. Foreclosures

Foreclosure occurs when homeowners fall behind on one or more scheduled mortgage payments. The foreclosure process can be halted if the homeowner is able to bring their mortgage payments current. If payments cannot be resumed or the debt cannot be resolved, the lender can legally use the foreclosure process to repossess (take over) the home. When this happens, the homeowner must move out of the property. If the home is worth less than the total amount owed on the mortgage loan, a deficiency judgment could be pursued. If that happens, the homeowner would lose their home and also would owe the home lender an additional amount.

California has been hit particularly hard by the recent credit crisis, resulting in the foreclosure of many homes. In 2008, out of the nearly 8.5 million houses and condos in the State, 236,231 homes, or 2.8 percent of California's housing stock, were foreclosed on.19 In the fourth quarter of 2008, alone, over 1,300 properties in Ventura County received Notices of Default (the first step in foreclosure process).

Table 72 presents current foreclosure data by jurisdiction. An estimated 2.7 percent of the County’s housing stock is at various stages of foreclosures. While the percentage of

19 http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/CA-Foreclosures/RRFor090127.aspx Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 124 foreclosures countywide is on par with the State average, the cities of Fillmore, Ojai, and Oxnard are experiencing significantly higher rates of foreclosure.

Table 72: Foreclosures (September 2009) Pre- % of Total Bank- Foreclosure Auction Total Housing Owned Sales Stock Camarillo 290 129 186 605 2.4% Fillmore 76 48 79 203 4.6% Moorpark 132 62 106 300 2.8% Ojai 70 29 39 138 4.1% Oxnard 854 691 754 2,299 4.4% Port Hueneme 125 85 90 300 3.7% Santa Paula 121 83 94 298 3.4% Simi Valley 584 232 459 1,275 3.0% Thousand Oaks 248 157 185 590 1.3% Ventura 417 224 250 891 2.1% Unincorporated County3 317 95 236 648 1.9% Newbury Park 139 20 114 273 -- Oak Park 44 15 30 89 -- Oak View 32 26 25 83 -- Piru 6 2 6 14 -- Somis 14 6 9 29 -- Westlake Village 82 26 52 160 -- Total County 3,234 1,835 2,478 7,547 2.7% Notes: 1. Pre-foreclosures are those properties that are in default in the mortgage payments and notices of default have been filed. The owner can still correct the situation by paying off the defaulted amounts or by selling the property. 2. Bank-owned properties are those properties that go back to the mortgage companies after unsuccessful auctions. 3. Foreclosure numbers for unincorporated Ventura County were estimated from foreclosure activity in the unincorporated neighborhoods of Newbury Park, Oak Park, Oak View, Piru, Somis, and Westlake Village. Sources: www.realtytrac.com; Department of Finance, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 4: Lending Practices May 2010 Page 125

Chapter 5 - Public Policies

Public policies established at the regional and local levels can affect housing development and therefore, may have an impact on the range and location of housing choices available to residents. Fair housing laws are designed to encourage an inclusive living environment and active community participation, and an assessment of public policies and practices enacted by jurisdictions within the County can help determine potential impediments to fair housing opportunity. This section presents an overview of government regulations, policies, and practices enacted by each of the jurisdictions in Ventura County that may impact fair housing choice.

A. Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development

The General Plan of a jurisdiction establishes a vision for the community and provides long- range goals and policies to guide the development in achieving that vision. Two of the seven State-mandated General Plan elements – Housing and Land Use Elements – have direct impact on the local housing market in terms of the amount and range of housing choice. The Zoning Ordinance, which implements the Land Use Element, is another important document that influences the amount and type of housing available in a community – the availability of housing choice. In addition, four jurisdictions (Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura, and the unincorporated County) have Local Coastal Plans that also play a significant role in affordable housing in the Coastal Zone of each jurisdiction.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 126

1. Housing Element Law and Compliance

As one of the State-mandated elements of the local General Plan, the Housing Element is the only element with specific statutory requirements and is subject to review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State law. Enacted in 1969, Housing Element law requires that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for and do not unduly constrain housing development. Specifically, the Housing Element must:

• Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels in order to meet the community’s housing goals;

• Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households;

• Address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing;

• Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and

• Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.

Compliance Status

Table 73 summarizes the Housing Element compliance status of jurisdictions in Ventura County. A Housing Element found by HCD to be in compliance with State law is presumed to have adequately addressed its policy constraints. According to HCD, of the 11 participating jurisdictions (including the County), only two Housing Elements were in compliance, six have submitted initial drafts, two were in development, and two Housing Elements were under review by the agency as of August 2009. This is identified as an impediment in Chapter 8 and jurisdictions with non-compliant Housing Elements are urged to work with HCD to ensure that their Housing Elements receive certification.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 127

Table 73: Housing Element Status for 2008-2014 Cycle Jurisdiction Document Status Date Reviewed by State Compliance Status Camarillo Adopted 8/13/09 In Fillmore Draft 12/29/08 Out Moorpark In Development N/A Out Ojai Draft 6/1/09 Out Oxnard Draft 4/24/09 Out Port Hueneme Adopted 10/21/09 In Santa Paula Draft 8/22/08 Out Simi Valley In Development1 N/A Out Thousand Oaks Adopted 12/29/09 In Review Ventura Draft 11/23/09 In Review County Draft 10/09/09 Out Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, State of California, August 24, 2009. Note: 1. Will have a draft by publication of this AI

Common issues cited by HCD in its review of Housing Elements found to be out of compliance with State law include the need for:

• An analysis of the existing and projected needs of extremely low-income households;

• An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment;

• The identification of zoning districts available to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and farmworker housing;

• A detailed analysis of the potential impacts the jurisdiction’s land use controls may have on the cost and supply of housing;

• The identification of subdivision level on- and off-site improvement requirements;

• An analysis of permit approval procedures by zone and housing type;

• A thorough analysis of special needs groups and their specific housing needs; and

• Programs needed to mitigate or remove governmental constraints and assist in the development of housing.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 128

2. Land Use Element

The Land Use Element of a General Plan designates the general distribution, location, and extent of uses for land planned for housing, business, industry, open space, and public or community facilities. As it applies to housing, the Land Use Element establishes a range of residential land use categories, specifies densities (typically expressed as dwelling units per acre [du/ac]), and suggests the types of housing appropriate in a community. Residential development is implemented through the zoning districts and development standards specified in the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance.

Residential Densities

A number of factors, governmental and non-governmental, affect the supply and cost of housing in a local housing market. The governmental factor that most directly influences these market conditions is the allowable density range of residentially designated land. In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per-unit cost of land and improvements, and reduce developments costs associated with new housing construction. Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher- density residential uses to be developed within a community, increasing the feasibility of producing affordable housing. Minimum required densities in multi-family zones ensure that land zoned for multi-family use, the supply of which is often limited, will be developed as efficiently as possible for multi-family uses.

Table 74 presents a summary of allowable densities by land use type for jurisdictions in Ventura County. While most jurisdictions have Land Use Elements that allow a range of single-family (0-14 du/ac) and multi-family (6-30+ du/ac) residential uses, Ojai, due to the characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods, does not accommodate multi-family uses at a density greater than 15-20 du/ac without a density bonus or other incentive for affordable housing. The City of Moorpark also requires a conditional use permit for multiple-family projects.

The City of Simi Valley is in the process of updating its General Plan. The land use provisions included in the AI report represent existing land use designations under the current General Plan. The proposed Land Use Element includes higher density development in areas designated for transit-oriented developments.

The City of Oxnard is nearing completion of its 2030 General Plan, which focuses future development on transit-oriented Urban Villages and areas within the Oxnard City Urban Restriction Boundary that are not yet developed.

State law requires a local government to make a finding that a density reduction, rezoning, or downzoning is consistent with its Housing Element prior to requiring or permitting a reduction of density of a parcel below the density used in determining Housing Element compliance. The legislation also allowed courts to award attorneys’ fees and costs if the court determines that the density reduction or downzoning was made illegally.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 129

Table 74: Typical Land Use Categories & Permitted Density by Jurisdiction Generalized Density Land Use Port Santa Simi Thousand Range Typical Residential Type Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Ventura County (By Hueneme Paula Valley Oaks (du/ac) Density) Single-family Very low-density housing Estate/Rural <1 where agricultural is predominant Single-family homes on Very Low 0-1 large lots in rural areas Single-family homes on Low 1-3 large lots Single-family homes on Medium 3-6 medium-sized lots High 6-14 Smaller single-family homes Multiple-family Town homes, duplexes, Low 6-15 condominiums, and small single-story apartments One and two-story Medium 15-20 apartment complexes Two and three-story High 20-30 apartment complexes Large multi-story apartment Very High 30-50 and condo complexes Special High-rise apartment and 50+ High condo complexes Source: General Plan Land Use Elements and Zoning Ordinances for jurisdictions in Ventura County. Note: This table represents a summary of typical land use categories, as defined by density. These categories are not necessarily representative of a specific jurisdiction’s General Plan Land Use categories. Instead, they are meant to provide an overview of the type of land uses and densities permitted in that jurisdiction. The squares identify a jurisdiction as supporting land use densities within the identified range (according to the General Plan’s Land Use Element). However, a jurisdiction’s land use category might not include all the densities listed in that range. For example, a jurisdiction’s Multi-Family Very High density category might support densities from 21 to 35 du/ac, but the High and Very High categories will be checked since the range covers both categories.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 130

3. Zoning Ordinance

The Zoning Ordinance implements the General Plan by establishing zoning districts that correspond with General Plan land use designations. Development standards and permitted uses in each zoning district are specified to govern the density, type, and design of different land uses for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare (Government Code, Sections 65800-65863). Several aspects of the Zoning Ordinance that may affect a person’s access to housing or limit the range of housing choices available are described below.

As part of the Housing Element update, jurisdictions are required to evaluate their land use policies, zoning provisions, and development regulations, and make proactive efforts to mitigate any constraints identified. However, the following review is based on the current Zoning Ordinances as of the writing of this AI.

Definition of Family

A community’s Zoning Ordinance can potentially restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, a landlord may refuse to rent to a “nontraditional” family based on the zoning definition of a family. A landlord may also use the definition of a family as an excuse for refusing to rent to a household based on other hidden reasons, such as household size. Even if the code provides a broad definition, deciding what constitutes a “family” should be avoided by jurisdictions to prevent confusion or give the impression of restrictiveness.

California court cases20 have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e. by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit, is invalid. Court rulings stated that defining a family does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land planning powers of the jurisdiction, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution. A Zoning Ordinance also cannot regulate residency by discrimination between biologically related and unrelated persons. Furthermore, a zoning provision cannot regulate or enforce the number of persons constituting a family. Currently, Zoning Ordinances for Camarillo, Port Hueneme, and Thousand Oaks include definitions of “family” that constitutes a potential impediment to fair housing choice. However, Camarillo’s recently certified Housing Element includes a program to update its definition of family.

20 City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980), City of Chula Vista v. Pagard (1981), among others. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 131

Density Bonus

California Government Code Section 65915 provides that a local government shall grant a density bonus of at least 20 percent (five percent for condominiums) and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a developer of a housing development agreeing to provide at least:

• Ten percent of the units for lower income households; • Five percent of the units for very low income households; • Ten percent of the condominium units for moderate income households; • A senior citizen housing development; or • Qualified donations of land, condominium conversions, and child care facilities.

The density bonus law also applies to senior housing projects and projects which include a child care facility. In addition to the density bonus stated above, the statute includes a sliding scale that requires:

• An additional 2.5 percent density bonus for each additional increase of one percent Very Low income units above the initial five percent threshold;

• A density increase of 1.5 percent for each additional one percent increase in Low income units above the initial 10 percent threshold; and

• A one percent density increase for each one percent increase in Moderate income units above the initial 10 percent threshold.

These bonuses reach a maximum density bonus of 35 percent when a project provides either 11 percent Very Low income units, 20 percent Low income units, or 40 percent Moderate income units. In addition to a density bonus, developers may also be eligible for one of the following concessions or incentives:

• Reductions in site development standards and modifications of zoning and architectural design requirements, including reduced setbacks and parking standards;

• Mixed used zoning that will reduce the cost of the housing, if the non-residential uses are compatible with the housing development and other development in the area; and

• Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in "identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions."

As of August 2009, Zoning Ordinances for Moorpark, Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Thousand Oaks specified density bonus provisions in accordance with State law. The City of Simi Valley will update its density bonus provisions by May 2010. Other jurisdictions have not yet

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 132

revised the Zoning Ordinances to reflect new State law. However, when requested by a development applicant, the jurisdiction must comply with the new density bonus provisions. Specifying the density bonus provisions and types of incentives and concessions available in the Zoning Ordinances provides certainty to developers.

Parking Requirements

Communities that require an especially high number of parking spaces per dwelling unit can negatively impact the feasibility of producing affordable housing or housing for special needs groups by reducing the achievable number of dwelling units per acre, increasing development costs, and thus restrict the range of housing types constructed in a community. Typically, the concern for high parking requirements is limited to multiple-family, affordable, or senior housing. The basic parking standards for jurisdictions in Ventura County are presented in Table 75. Many jurisdictions offer reductions in parking requirements in conjunction with density bonuses for affordable and senior housing.

Table 75: Parking Requirements Multiple-Family Second Single- Dwelling Jurisdictions Guest Family 1br 2br 3br 4+br Unit Space (SDU) Camarillo 2 1.52 2.0 2.0 0.2 1 Fillmore 2 1.52 2.5 2.5 0.33 2 Moorpark 2-3 2 2 2 2 0.5 1-2 Ojai 2 1.5-21.5-2 1.5-2 1.5-2 0.5-1 1 Oxnard 2-5 12 2 2 0.5-1 1 Port Hueneme 2-3 1.5 2 2 2-3 0.5 1 Ventura (City) 2 1 2 2 2 0.25 1 2-2.3 + Ventura (County) 2-5 1.25-2 1.5-2.2 2-2.3 0.25 1-2 0.2/br Santa Paula 2-3 1.5 1.75 2 2.25-2.5 0.25 1.5-2.5 Simi Valley 2 See Note below 0.2 1/BR Thousand Oaks 2-4 1 2 2.5 2.5 0.5 1/BR Source: Zoning Ordinances for jurisdictions in Ventura County. Notes: 1. City of Ojai: Standards for multifamily vary by number of units in the development. 2. City of Oxnard: One visitor space per unit for the first 30 units; 0.5 visitor space per unit required after the 31st unit. 3. City of Port Hueneme: Density bonus provisions for seniors and persons with disabilities (lower income households) allow for reductions in the number of parking spaces. 4. City of Santa Paula: SDU parking must conform to the multi-family parking standards. 5. City of Simi Valley: 1.76 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross residential floor area; plus 0.17 space per unit. 1 guest space per 5 dwelling unit; or 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, whichever is greater.

Most jurisdictions in the County have comparable parking requirements. However, Moorpark has parking standards for multiple-family uses that make little or no distinction between parking required for smaller units (one or two bedrooms) and larger units (three or Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 133 more bedrooms). Because smaller multiple-family units are often the most suitable type of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, requiring the same number parking spaces as larger multiple-family units can be a constraint on the construction of units intended to serve these populations. As such, parking requirements in these jurisdictions could be perceived as a potential impediment to fair housing choice.

Jurisdictions will also sometimes establish minimum standards and requirements for handicapped parking. Most of the jurisdictions in the County specify that handicapped parking must comply with the requirements and standards outlined in Title 24 of the Building Code.

Variety of Housing Opportunity

To ensure fair housing choice in a community, a Zoning Ordinance should provide for a range of housing types, including single-family, multiple-family, second dwelling units, mobile and manufactured homes, licensed residential care facilities, emergency shelters, supportive housing, transitional housing, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. Table 76 provides a summary of each jurisdiction’s Zoning Ordinance as it relates to ensuring a variety of housing opportunities.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 134

Table 76: Variety of Housing Opportunity Port Santa Simi Thousand Housing Type Camarillo Fillmore Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Ventura County Hueneme Paula Valley Oaks Single-family P P P P P P P P P P P Multiple-family D D C P P/C P P P P P D Second Dwelling Units P C D P P* P P P P P P Mobile Home Parks C D C C C C P C P P C Manufactured Housing P D P P P P P P -- P P Residential Care Facilities P P P C P P -- P -- P P (6 or fewer persons) Residential Care Facilities C C C C C* C C C -- C C (more than 6 persons) Emergency Shelters C D -- C C C C P/D1 ------Transitional Housing C -- -- C* C -- C C ------Supportive Housing D ------C ------Single Room Occupancy D ------C -- C ------(SRO) Farmworker Housing D C -- C C -- C -- -- C C Notes: P – permitted; D – Development Review Permit; C – Conditional or Special Use Permit. ___ - Potential impediments. * -Permitted but with a potential impediment. 1. Only new construction requires a Development Review Permit.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice C h a p t e r 5 : P u b l i c P o l i c i e s May 2010 Page 135

Single- and Multiple-Family Uses

Single- and multiple-family housing types include detached and attached single-family homes, duplexes or half-plexes, town homes, condominiums, and rental apartments. Zoning Ordinances should specify the zones in which each of these uses would be permitted by right. Most jurisdictions in Ventura County accommodate the range of residential uses described above without a use permit; Moorpark being the exception. Use permit requirements for multiple-family uses within land use designations and zoning districts that have been identified as being suitable for higher density residential land uses may extend the time frame for project review and increase the uncertainty of project approval.

Zoning Ordinances should also avoid “pyramid or cumulative zoning” (e.g. permitting lower- density single-family uses in zones intended for higher density multi-family uses). Pyramid or cumulative zoning schemes could limit the amount of lower-cost multiple-family residential uses in a community and be a potential impediment to fair housing choice. Most jurisdictions in Ventura County have some form of pyramid zoning and permitting single- family residential uses in multiple-family zones is the most prevalent example. Fillmore and Simi Valley are the only jurisdictions that do not have a form of pyramid zoning. Camarillo’s recently certified Housing Element, however, includes a program for maintenance of the density balance by requiring language in specific plans that the density range will be achieved. Allowing or requiring a lower density use in a zone that can accommodate higher density uses is regulated by State law (SB 2292, Dutra). A local government is required to make a finding that an action that results in a density reduction, rezoning, or downzoning is consistent with its Housing Element, particularly in relation to the jurisdiction’s ability to accommodate its share of regional housing needs.

Second Dwelling Units

Second dwelling units are attached or detached dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. Second units may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower income households and seniors. These units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size.

California law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under which second units are permitted. Second units cannot be prohibited in residential zones unless a local jurisdiction establishes that such action may limit housing opportunities in the region and finds that second units would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in residential zones.

The State’s second unit law was amended in September 2002 to require use of a ministerial, rather than discretionary, process for reviewing and approving second units. A ministerial process is intended to reduce permit processing time frames and development costs because proposed second units that are in compliance with local zoning standards can be approved without a public hearing.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 136

Most jurisdictions in the County have amended their Zoning Ordinances and currently permit second unit development via a variety of review processes such as a zoning clearance or an administrative permit. However, Fillmore and Moorpark require approval of a discretionary permit and Oxnard does not provide for second dwelling units within the coastal zone. Because second dwelling units can be an important source of suitable type of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, overly restrictive or conflicting provisions for these units can impede housing options.

Mobile Home Parks

Provisions for mobile home parks vary among the Ventura County jurisdictions. Most jurisdictions require a use permit; however, mobile home parks are allowed with a development review permit in Fillmore and by right in Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks, and the City of Ventura.

Manufactured Housing

State law requires local governments to permit manufactured or mobile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation in all single-family residential zoning districts (Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code). A local jurisdiction’s Zoning Ordinance should be compliant with this law. Currently, the Thousand Oaks Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts consistent with State law. Fillmore requires approval of a development review permit when ministerial approval is required. Because these units can be a source of housing for lower income individuals, including seniors and the disabled, overly restrictive regulation of these uses can indirectly impede housing choice.

Residential Care Facilities

The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Sections 5115 and 5116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code) declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and that the use of property for the care of six or fewer disabled persons is a residential use for zoning purposes. A state- authorized, certified, or licensed family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use that is permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes (commonly referred to as “group” homes) of six or fewer persons with disabilities than are required of the other permitted residential uses in the zone.

There are a total of 947 licensed community care facilities and 29,416 beds in Ventura County as of September 2009. Table 41 (page 68) provides a tabulation of licensed care capacity by jurisdiction and Figure 15 illustrates the geographic distribution of these facilities. The cities of Oxnard and Simi Valley had the highest number of facilities (267 and 165 respectively); however, the City of Ventura had the highest number of beds (6,063) in the County. Yet when reviewing the number of beds per 1,000 people, Ojai and Camarillo Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 137

had the highest concentration of beds. Specifically, Ojai had 149.44 beds per 1,000 residents and Camarillo had 56.22 beds per 1,000 residents. Community care facilities are least concentrated in Santa Paula and Port Hueneme, all of whom have less than 23 beds per 1,000 residents. The concentration of community care facilities is also small in the unincorporated County, though this is primarily because it is significantly more efficient to place facilities within cities, so that they can be close to other necessary services.

Although there does not appear to be a relationship between Zoning Ordinance provisions for residential care facilities and the location of these facilities by jurisdiction, a number of jurisdictions do not include provisions for residential care facilities serving more than six persons in their Zoning Ordinance. Thousand Oaks does not have provisions for residential care facilities in its Zoning Ordinance. Ojai and Santa Paula do not explicitly permit licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in family residential zones. Oxnard limits the number of individuals that can occupy larger residential care facilities. No provision for or overly restrictive regulation of residential care facilities can indirectly impede fair housing choice in Ventura County.

Furthermore, the Lanterman Act covers only licensed residential care facilities. The California Housing Element law was recently amended (SB 2) to address the provision of transitional and supportive housing, which covers also non-licensed housing facilities for persons with disabilities. This topic is discussed later.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 138

y ties in Ventura Count ure 15: Licensed Care Facili g Fi

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 139

Emergency Shelters

An emergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims, operated by a public or non-profit agency. State law requires jurisdictions to identify adequate sites for housing which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including emergency shelters and transitional housing (Section 65583(c)(1) of the Government Code). Recent changes in State law (SB 2), requires that local jurisdictions make provisions in the zoning code to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. Local jurisdictions may, however, establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters. At the writing of this report, only Simi Valley permits emergency shelters by right in at least one zone, in accordance with State law. However, in their Housing Elements, a number of jurisdictions have committed to adding appropriate provisions for emergency shelters to their Zoning Ordinances.

Transitional and Supportive Housing

State law (AB 2634 and SB 2) requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. Under Housing Element law, transitional housing is defined as buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months (California Health and Safety Code Section 50675.2).

Under the Housing Element law, supportive housing is defined as housing with no limit on length of stay that is occupied by a target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community (California Health and Safety Code 50675.14 (b)). Target population includes adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5, commencing with Section 4500, of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people (California Health and Safety Code 53260 (d)).

Pursuant to SB 2, transitional and supportive housing constitutes a residential use and therefore local governments cannot treat it differently from other types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit when other residential uses of similar function do not require a use permit). As of August 2009, no jurisdiction in Ventura County included provisions for supportive housing in their Zoning Ordinance without a conditional review. Transitional housing is conditionally permitted in some districts in Camarillo, Ojai, Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Simi Valley.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 140

Supportive and transitional housing provides additional housing options for people with disabilities, a protected class of the population. To facilitate and encourage the provision of supportive housing in the region, the Zoning Ordinances of most jurisdictions should be amended to define and identify zones for transitional and supportive housing consistent with SB 2.

Single-Room Occupancy (SRO)

AB 2634 amending the State Housing Element law also mandates that local jurisdictions address the provision of housing options for extremely low income households, including Single Room Occupancy units (SRO). SRO units are one room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. It is distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one- room unit that must contain a kitchen and bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. Currently, only the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, and Santa Paula provide for SRO units. Camarillo permits SROs as efficiency units or under the definition of lodging house. SRO units are one of the most traditional forms of affordable private housing for lower income individuals, including seniors and persons with disabilities. These protected classes are required to have suitable housing options, which SRO’s provide. All jurisdictions in Ventura County should amend their Zoning Ordinances to facilitate and encourage the provision of SROs consistent with AB 2634.

Farmworker Housing

California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted. The City of Simi Valley allows agricultural uses, and by extension farmworker housing, in its Open Space districts. With the exception of Simi Valley and Port Hueneme (where there is no agriculturally designated land use or agricultural operations), all communities do not currently comply with the Employee Housing Act requirements for farmworker housing. This, however, does not account for cities that permit farm worker housing in residential zoning districts, as not all farmworkers need to be housed on agricultural land.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 141

Table 77: Farmworker Housing by Jurisdiction Permits Farmworker Compliance with Agricultural Jurisdiction Housing in Employee Housing Zoning Zoning Act Ordinance Camarillo Yes CUP4 No Fillmore No CUP1 No Moorpark Yes No No Ojai Yes CUP No Oxnard Yes CUP2 No Port Hueneme No No Yes Santa Paula Yes CUP No Simi Valley No3 No Yes Thousand Oaks Information not available Ventura Yes CUP No County Yes CUP5 No Notes: 1. The City of Fillmore currently has no agricultural zoning but permits via a CUP process farmworker congregate housing. The Draft Fillmore Housing Element indicates that the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to include an agricultural district and permit farmworker housing according to the Employee Housing Act. 2. The City of Oxnard permits farmworker housing via a CUP process. However, employee housing for six or fewer persons is not addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City of Simi Valley has no agricultural land use designation but its open space district permits agricultural uses by right. 4. The City of Camarillo permits farmworker housing in residential zones. The recently certified Housing Element states the City will amend the Municipal Code to conform to the Employee Housing Act. 5. The County of Ventura requires a Planned Development Permit and zoning clearance.

B. Building, Occupancy, Health and Safety Codes

1. Building Codes

Building codes, such as the California Building Standards Code21 and the Uniform Housing Code are necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. However, local codes that require substantial improvements to a building might not be warranted and deter housing construction and/or neighborhood improvement.

21 California Building Standards Code, adopted by the a Building Standards Commission, is actually a set of uniform building, electrical, mechanical, and other codes adopted by professional associations such as the International Conference of Building Officials, and amended to include California-specific requirements.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 142

The California Building Standards Code is published every three years by order of the California legislature. The Code applies to all jurisdictions in the State of California unless otherwise annotated. Adoption of the triennial compilation of Codes is not only a legal mandate, it also ensures the highest available level of safety for citizens and that all construction and maintenance of structures meets the highest standards of quality. Most jurisdictions in Ventura County have adopted the 2007 California Building Standards Code, with the exception of Fillmore, which has adopted the 2001 California Building Code. Other codes commonly adopted by reference within the region include the California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California or National Electric Code, Uniform Housing Code, and California Fire Code. Less common are the California Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Urban-Wildland Interface Code, and the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Most jurisdictions have amended portions of these codes to reflect non-arbitrary local conditions including geographical and topographic conditions unique to each locality.

2. Occupancy Standards

Disputes over occupancy standards are typical tenant/landlord and fair housing issues. Families with children and large households are often discriminated in the housing market, particularly in the rental housing market, because landlords are reluctant or flatly refuse to rent to such households. Establishing a strict occupancy standard either by the local jurisdictions or by landlords on the rental agreements may be a violation of fair housing practices.

In general, no State or federal regulations govern occupancy standards. The State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) uses the “two-plus-one” rule in considering the number of persons per housing unit – two persons per bedroom plus an additional person. Using this rule, a landlord cannot restrict occupancy to fewer than three persons for a one-bedroom unit or five persons for a two-bedroom unit, etc. Other issues such as lack of parking, gender of the children occupying one bedroom, should not be factors considered by the landlord when renting to a household. While DFEH also uses other factors, such as the age of the occupants and size of rooms, to consider the appropriate standard, the two-plus-one rule is generally followed. Other guidelines are also used as occupancy standards – the California Fire Code and the Uniform Housing Code. The Fire Code allows one person per 150 square feet of “habitable” space. The Uniform Housing Code (1997 edition) outlines a standard of one person for every 50 square feet of bedroom space. These standards are typically more liberal than the “two-plus-one” rule.

A review of occupancy standards for jurisdictions within Ventura County revealed that, while most jurisdictions do not overtly limit the number of people who can occupy a housing unit, the definition used by some jurisdictions to define “family” as a household of not more than a certain number of individuals or a “reasonable” number of individuals could constitute an impediment to fair housing choice. Such a definition of family may be interpreted as an occupancy standard that in some cases could be more restrictive than that established in the Uniform Housing Code, California Fire Code, or DFEH guidelines. Jurisdictions that define

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 143

“family” as a household of not more than a certain number of unrelated individuals include Camarillo and Thousand Oaks. However, the City of Camarillo, in its recently certified Housing Element, included a program to amend its definition of family so that it is not an impediment to fair housing choice. As previously discussed, court rulings stated a Zoning Ordinance cannot regulate residency by discrimination between biologically related and unrelated persons. Port Hueneme’s definition limits families to a “reasonable” number of people, which can be open to interpretation and therefore potentially impede fair housing choice.

C. Affordable Housing Development

In general, many minority and special needs households are disproportionately affected by a lack of adequate and affordable housing in a region. While affordability issues are not directly fair housing issues, expanding access to housing choices for these groups cannot ignore the affordability factor. Insofar as rent-restricted or non-restricted low-cost housing is concentrated in certain geographic locations, access to housing by lower income and minority groups in other areas is limited and can therefore be an indirect impediment to fair housing choice. Furthermore, various permit processing and development impact fees charged by local government results in increased housing costs and can be a barrier to the development of affordable housing. Other policies and programs, such as inclusionary housing and growth management programs, can either facilitate or inhibit the production of affordable housing. These issues are examined in the subsections below.

Siting of Affordable Housing

Ventura County has a large inventory of affordable housing units. The distribution of these units, however, is uneven throughout the region, with dense clusters of affordable housing located in western Ventura County, near the cities of Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Ventura, and smaller clusters in the cities of Camarillo and Simi Valley (Figure 3 on page 67). There is a distinct lack of affordable housing located in central and northern Ventura County. About one-half (50 percent) of the region’s affordable housing stock is concentrated in just two cities—Oxnard and Simi Valley. Jurisdictions with the highest concentration of affordable housing (as measured by the ratio of affordable units per 500 housing units) include Ojai, Oxnard, Santa Paula, and Simi Valley (Table 78). Jurisdictions with the lowest concentration of affordable housing are unincorporated Ventura County, Port Hueneme, and Fillmore.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 144

Table 78: Affordable Housing Units by Jurisdiction Total % of All % of Housing Affordable Affordable Housing Affordable Jurisdiction Stock Units per 500 Units Units Units in Affordable Housing Units (2009) County Camarillo 842 25,109 3.4% 10.7% 16.8 Fillmore 73 4,411 1.7% 0.9% 8.3 Moorpark 283 10,701 2.6% 3.6% 13.2 Ojai 137 3,343 4.1% 1.7% 20.5 Oxnard 2,362 52,185 4.5% 29.9% 22.6 Port Hueneme 117 8,122 1.4% 1.5% 7.2 Santa Paula 407 8,644 4.7% 5.1% 23.5 Simi Valley 1,652 42,010 3.9% 20.9% 19.7 Thousand Oaks 985 47,119 2.1% 12.5% 10.5 Ventura 973 42,688 2.3% 12.3% 11.4 Unincorporated Areas 74 33,563 0.2% 0.9% 1.1 Ventura County 7,905 277,895 2.8% 100.0% 14.2 Sources: California Department of Finance, 2009; HUD, and participating jurisdictions. Note: Affordable units do not include affordable military housing units or units made affordable through down payment assistance.

Development Fees

Housing construction imposes certain short- and long-term costs upon local government, such as the cost of providing planning services and inspections. As a result, Ventura County jurisdictions rely upon various planning and development fees to recoup costs and ensure that essential services and infrastructure are available when needed. Planning fees for the County of Ventura and its jurisdictions are summarized in Table 79. As shown, fees vary widely based on the needs of each jurisdiction.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 145

Table 79: Development Fees General Plan Jurisdiction CUP Variance Amendment Camarillo $4,000 to $4,600 $2,000 to $4,400 $1,500 FAHR and $2,750 Fillmore $480 to $3,200 $1,000 to $2,860 deposit Moorpark $18,000 $4,500 $4,500 Ojai $6,750 $972 to $3,587 $406 to $1,784 Oxnard $10,167 $4,082 $1,875 Port Hueneme $525 + $3,500 deposit $525 + $3,500 deposit $525 + $3,500 deposit Ventura (City) $12,364 $4,870 $4,863 FAHR and $3,000 FAHR and $1,500 FAHR and $2,000 Ventura (County) deposit deposit deposit FAHR and $2,500 FAHR and $3,200 FAHR and $2,800 Santa Paula deposit deposit deposit Simi Valley $3,694 to $10,355 $1,667 to $7,322 $2,599 to $3,509 Thousand Oaks $7,740 $1,000 to $11,380 $1,305 to $5,045 Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2009. FAHR = Fully allocated Hourly Rate

Until 1978, property taxes were the primary revenue source for financing the construction of infrastructure and improvements required to support new residential development. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 has limited a local jurisdiction’s ability to raise property taxes and significantly lowered the ad valorem tax rate, increasing reliance on other funding sources to provide infrastructure, public improvements, and public services. An alternative funding source widely used among local governments in California is the development impact fee, which is collected for a variety of improvements including water and sewer facilities, parks, and transportation improvements. To enact an impact fee, State law requires that the local jurisdiction demonstrate the “nexus” between the type of development in question and the impact being mitigated by the proposed fee. Also, the amount of the fee must be roughly proportional to the impact caused by the development. Nevertheless, development impact fees today have become a significant cost factor in housing development.

California’s high residential development fees contribute to its high housing costs and prices. Among California jurisdictions, fees account for an average of ten percent of the median price of new single-family homes. The effects of reduced fees on housing affordability, however, would vary widely depending on the amount of the fee reduction and on current home prices. As things now stand, those jurisdictions that do the most to accommodate California’s housing production needs are also the most dependent on development fees to finance growth-supporting infrastructure, and thus, can least afford to reduce their fees. Conversely, those jurisdictions in which fees are low relative to housing prices tend to be less dependent on fees and can most afford to reduce them, should they so desire.

According to a 2001 report by the Department of Housing and Community Development, homebuilders in the Central Coast region paid, on average, the highest in development fees

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 146

($29,799 per unit), followed closely by Bay Area and Sacramento builders ($28,526 and $27,480, respectively). Homebuilders in San Joaquin Valley communities, as well as more rural northern and Sierra communities, paid the lowest average fees ($18,728 and $20,005 per unit, respectively), followed by those in Southern California ($21,410).

The contribution of fees to home prices varies temporally as well as spatially. When times are good, housing production tends to lag behind demand, especially in coastal markets. Housing prices during such periods are chiefly affected by the balance between supply and demand and are much less affected by construction and development costs. When economic times are bad, as they are today in most parts of California, and demand is weak, housing prices are more sharply affected by the prices of construction inputs, including fees. The strength of the economy and housing market also determines the degree of fee shifting and who ultimately pays fees. During strong economic times, it is the final homebuyer or renter who ends up paying housing development fees; the builder or developer is mostly an intermediary. During recessionary periods, the burden of paying of fees may be shifted to the landowner.

D. Other Land Use Policies, Programs, and Controls

Land use policies, programs, and controls can impede or facilitate housing development and can have implications for fair housing choice in a community. Inclusionary housing policies and redevelopment project areas can facilitate new affordable housing projects, while growth management programs and Article 34 of the California Constitution can impede new affordable housing development. Table 80 identifies jurisdictions that are affected by or have adopted land use policies, programs, and controls that may affect housing development and fair housing choice in its community.

Table 80: Land Use Policies and Controls Article Growth Inclusionary Redevelopment Jurisdictions 34 Management Housing Project Area Camarillo X X X X Fillmore -- X -- X Moorpark -- X X X Ojai X X -- X Oxnard X X X X Port Hueneme X -- X X Ventura X X X X Santa Paula X X X X Simi Valley X X -- X Thousand Oaks X X X X County X X X* X Source: Participating jurisdictions, September 2009. * The County applies inclusionary housing requirements to certain projects, on a case-by-case basis.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 147

1. Article 34

Article 34 of the State Constitution requires a majority vote of the electorate to approve the development, construction, or acquisition by a public body of any “low rent housing project” within that jurisdiction. In other words, for any projects where at least 50 percent of the occupants are low income and rents are restricted to affordable levels, the jurisdiction must seek voter approval known as “Article 34 Authority” to authorize that number of units. Nine jurisdictions (Camarillo, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Ventura City, Ventura County, Santa Paula, Simi Valley,22 and Thousand Oaks) have obtained Article 34 authority to be directly involved in the development, construction, and acquisition of low-rent housing.

In the past, Article 34 may have prevented certain projects from being built. In practice, most public agencies have learned how to structure projects to avoid triggering Article 34, such as limiting public assistance to 49 percent of the units in the project. Furthermore, the State legislature has enacted Sections 37001, 37001.3, and 37001.5 of the Health and Safety Code to clarify ambiguities relating to the scope of the applicability of Article 34 which now exist.

2. Growth Management Programs

Growth management programs facilitate well-planned development and ensure that the necessary services and facilities for residents are provided. However, a growth management program may act as a constraint if it prevents a jurisdiction from addressing its housing needs, which could indirectly impede fair housing choice. These programs range from general policies that require the expansion of public facilities and services concurrent with new development, to policies that establish urban growth boundaries (the outermost extent of anticipated urban development), to numerical limitations on the number of dwelling units that may be permitted annually.

The Board of Supervisors, all City Councils within Ventura County, and the Ventura County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) have jointly adopted the Guidelines for Orderly Development, which state that, whenever and wherever practical, "urban development" should occur within incorporated cities which exist to provide a full range and cost-effective means of providing municipal services. As a result, urban development is permitted only within existing cities (or by annexing to the city), or within Existing Communities or Unincorporated Urban Centers as designated in the Ventura County General Plan.

In 1995, the voters in the City of Ventura passed an initiative that requires an affirmative vote of the electorate for any General Plan amendment affecting Agricultural designated land. In late-1998 and early 1999, voters of the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks, as well as the unincorporated area of the County, approved similar initiatives and ordinances. More recently, the City of Santa Paula and Fillmore

22 Article 34 in Simi Valley applies only to senior developments. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 148

enacted their ordinances/initiatives in November 2000 and January 2002, respectively. These initiatives and ordinances became collectively known as the Save Our Agricultural Resources, SOAR ordinances.

The cities’ SOAR ordinances and initiatives establish urban boundaries around each city, outside of which urban development can occur only with voter approval. SOAR ordinances for the County and most cities remain in effect until 2020. The City of Ventura’s ordinance is in effect until 2025 and the Thousand Oaks ordinance is in effect until 2030. The County’s SOAR ordinance requires, with limited exceptions, that any change to the County General Plan involving the “Agricultural”, “Open Space”, or “Rural” land use designations, or an amendment to a General Plan goal or policy related to those land use designations, be subject to countywide voter approval. While the SOAR ordinances aim at preserving agricultural and open space resources in the County, they also preclude the re-designation of properties in the unincorporated area to accommodate additional housing.

Growth management ordinances in Camarillo, Ojai, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks include an annual limit on the number of dwelling units that may be constructed. An initiative passed by residents of Santa Paula in 2006 requires voter approval for large-scale developments proposed on 81 or more acres of property.

State housing law mandates a jurisdiction facilitate the development of a variety of housing to meet the jurisdiction’s fair share of regional housing needs. Any growth management measure that would compromise a jurisdiction’s ability to meet its regional housing needs may have an exclusionary effect of limiting housing choices and opportunities of regional residents, or concentrating such opportunities in other areas of the region.

3. Inclusionary Housing Programs

Inclusionary housing describes a local government requirement that a specified percentage of new housing units be reserved for, and affordable to, lower and moderate income households. The goal of inclusionary housing programs is to increase the supply of affordable housing commensurate with new market-rate development in a jurisdiction. This can result in improved regional jobs-housing balances and foster greater economic and racial integration within a community. The policy is most effective in areas experiencing rapid growth and a strong demand for housing.

Inclusionary programs can be voluntary or mandatory. Voluntary programs typically require developers to negotiate with public officials but do not specifically mandate the provision of affordable units. Mandatory programs are usually codified in the Zoning Ordinance, and developers are required to enter into a development agreement specifying the required number of affordable housing units or payment of applicable in-lieu fees23 prior to obtaining a building permit.

23 An in-lieu fee is the payment of a specified sum of money instead of constructing the required number of affordable housing units. The fee is used to finance affordable housing elsewhere in a community.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 149

The cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura have inclusionary housing policies. All programs in the County can be described as mandatory because they require dedication of a fixed percentage of proposed units affordable to lower- or moderate-income households or payment of a fee in-lieu of dedication that is used to build new affordable housing units in the jurisdiction. The County of Ventura does not have a formal policy; however, the Board of Supervisors has required inclusionary units in approved projects on a case-by-case basis. The City of Simi Valley also does not have a formal policy; however, the City does encourage affordable units within all housing projects over 10 units.

In 2009, the California Supreme Court chose to uphold the appellate court’s decision in the case of Palmer/Sixth Street Properties v. City of Los Angeles, The Palmer decision calls into question whether inclusionary housing ordinances, which require developers to offer a portion of rental units as low-income units or pay an in-lieu fee, may be in violation of California's Costa-Hawkins Act. The decision affects inclusionary housing practices related to rental properties specifically. The Palmer case was the first instance in which the Costa- Hawkins Act was applied to an inclusionary housing ordinance. This decision will not affect inclusionary housing requirements for ownership (for-sale) affordable units or rental projects that receive other types of financial assistance from jurisdictions (such as density bonuses or redevelopment funds). However, the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura may need to take a closer look at their inclusionary housing policies to ensure that they do not violate the Costa-Hawkins Act.

4. Redevelopment Project Areas

Redevelopment project areas constitute a significant source of affordable housing resources for local governments and all Ventura County jurisdictions have established redevelopment project areas. In comparison to federal affordable housing monies, California Redevelopment Law provides redevelopment agencies greater latitude in meeting affordable housing goals. Agencies may exercise all powers of redevelopment, which include land acquisition, leasing, construction, rehabilitation, subsidies, and many other financing tools.

State law requires redevelopment agencies to set-aside 20 percent of tax increment revenue generated from redevelopment projects for activities that increase, improve or preserve the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Affordable housing developed with 20 percent set-aside funds must remain affordable to the targeted income group for at least 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing. In addition, not less than 15 percent of all newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units within an area under the jurisdiction of a redevelopment agency must be made affordable to households earning low- and moderate-incomes; 40 percent of these units must be affordable to very low-income households.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 150

E. Policies Causing Displacement or Affect Housing Choice of Minorities and Persons with Disabilities

Local government policies could result in displacement or affect representation of minorities or the disabled. Policy areas that could have these effects are summarized accordingly: redevelopment activities, reasonable accommodations, ADA compliant public facilities, and occupancy standards.

1. Redevelopment Activities

Redevelopment activities are governed by the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Government Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and the California Eminent Domain Law (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et. seq.). Although construction activities within redevelopment project areas can result in new resources for lower and moderate income housing, existing lower and moderate income residents and businesses serving traditionally underserved populations can be displaced in the redevelopment process. To carry out redevelopment projects with a minimum of hardship to displaced persons and businesses, State law requires developers to make a reasonable attempt to acquire the necessary properties through voluntary means rather than the redevelopment agency’s use of eminent domain. Special attention should be paid to ensure that lower and moderate income households are fairly compensated in this process.

Despite laws designed to minimize the hardship to those displaced directly in the redevelopment process, those indirectly displaced through the redevelopment process have little or no recourse. A lower income household occupying a low cost rental unit in a complex planned for demolition in a redevelopment project area may be forced to move if a landlord decides not to renew the tenant’s lease, or permit the tenant to continue residing in the unit on a month-to-month basis until shortly before the structure is razed. Because of rising land values in areas targeted for redevelopment, existing lower income renters can be forced out of their communities if they are not able to find adequate and affordable housing nearby. Due to the socioeconomic and demographic factors, displacement (or gentrification) of this type can disproportionately affect minorities and persons with disabilities.

2. Reasonable Accommodation

Under State and federal law, local governments are required to “reasonably accommodate” housing for persons with disabilities when exercising planning and zoning powers. Jurisdictions must grant variances and zoning changes if necessary to make new construction or rehabilitation of housing for persons with disabilities feasible, but are not required to fundamentally alter their Zoning Ordinance.

Although most local governments are aware of State and Federal requirements to allow reasonable accommodations, if specific policies or procedures are not adopted by a jurisdiction or a jurisdiction requires a public hearing or discretionary decision, residents

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 151

with disabilities residents may be unintentionally displaced or discriminated against. Some jurisdictions provide flexibility in development standards on a case-by-case basis and only three jurisdictions (Port Hueneme, Simi Valley and the County of Ventura) have adopted formal policies and procedures in the Municipal Code to reasonably accommodate the housing needs of residents. However, Port Hueneme’s code requires a hearing before the City Council for major accommodation requests.

Currently, only the City of Simi Valley has a definition of disabled person in its Zoning Ordinance. A jurisdiction’s definition of a disabled person can be considered an impediment to fair housing if it is not consistent with the definition of disability provided under the Fair Housing Act. The Act defines disabled person as “those individuals with mental or physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The City of Simi Valley defines a disabled person as “a person with a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities.” This definition is consistent with the Fair Housing Act and is not considered an impediment.

As the jurisdictions of Ventura County begin the process of adopting formal reasonable accommodations procedures, they will need to also amend their Zoning Codes to include a definition of disabled person. Jurisdictions will ensure that these definitions are consistent with the Fair Housing Act in order to avoid creating an impediment to fair housing.

F. Equal Provision of and Access to Government Services

It is important that all socioeconomic segments of society are served equally with government services. The provision of adequate parks and recreation opportunities has become a rising concern as it relates to environmental justice.

1. Active Parkland

Active parkland is deficient in lower and moderate income areas throughout much of the County (see Table 81 and Figure 5 on page 72). While 35 percent of County residents lived in low and moderate income areas in 2000 (date of most recent available data), as of April 2010, only five percent of the region’s active parkland was located in these areas. Similarly, while 65 percent of County residents lived in upper income areas, 95 percent of the region’s parkland was located in these areas.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 152

Table 81: Park Acreage in Low and Moderate Income Areas Park Acreage Total Population # % # % Low and Moderate Income Areas 1,144.7 4.9% 265,077 35.2% Rest of Ventura County 22,202.5 95.1% 488,120 64.8% Total* 23,347.2 100.0% 753,197 100.0% * Individual park polygons had to be created for this analysis. Total acreage may, therefore, differ slightly from numbers presented in Table 42. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000; Participating jurisdictions, 2009.

As of 2000, only 10 percent of active parkland was located within census block groups where there is a concentration of minority residents (block groups whose proportion of minority households is greater than the overall Ventura County average of 43.4 percent), although 39 percent of the County population lived in these areas (Table 82). By contrast, 90 percent of the County’s active parkland was located in block groups where there was a low concentration of minorities (less than 43.4 percent), even though just 61 percent of County residents lived in these areas.

Table 82: Park Acreage in Minority Areas

Park Acreage Total Population # % # % Areas with Minority Concentration 2,406.4 9.7% 208,429 27.7% Areas with a High Minority Concentration 114.6 0.6% 86,968 11.5% Rest of Ventura County 20,979.8 89.7% 457,800 60.8% Total 23,500.8 100.0% 753,197 100.0% * Individual park polygons had to be created for this analysis. Total acreage may, therefore, differ slightly from numbers presented in Table 42. Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000; Participating jurisdictions, 2009.

2. Access to Transit

As outlined in Chapter 3 of this AI, equal provision of transit services is indirectly a fair housing issue if transit-dependent populations are not adequately served by public transit, thereby limiting their housing choice. One way to measure this is to compare the relationship between existing transit routes, employment centers, and areas where residents are using transit regularly.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 153

As depicted in Figure 6 (page 76), most transit dependent areas are adequately linked to major employment centers by existing transit service. However, this observation may be explained by the fact that many transit-dependent households tend to concentrate near existing transit lines. Public policies can ensure the transit services to closely align with transit needs of the region. By extending transit service into areas currently un-served, housing choice for transit-dependent households would expand.

3. ADA Compliant Public Facilities (Section 504 Assessment)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is federal civil rights legislation which makes it illegal to discriminate against persons with disabilities. Title II of the ADA requires elimination of discrimination in all public services and the elimination of architectural barriers in all publicly owned buildings and facilities. It is important that public facilities are ADA compliant to facilitate participation among disabled residents in the community planning and decision-making processes. One of the key places that facilitate community participation is City Hall. All ten jurisdictions’ City Hall and the County equivalent are ADA compliant.

G. Local Housing Authorities

In Ventura County, the HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program is administered by five different local housing authorities, four of which also oversee a public housing program. The Santa Paula Housing Authority provides Section 8 only. The housing authorities for the cities of Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme and the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura own and manage public housing in addition to offering the Section 8 program. The availability and use of Section 8 vouchers and public housing units must also adhere to fair housing laws.

All local housing authorities in the County, with the exception of the Housing Authority of Port Hueneme, have adopted priorities or preferences for Section 8 and/or public housing. Typically, local residents (or those who work locally), seniors, persons with disabilities and veterans are given preferences.

Section 16(a)(3)(B) of the United States Housing Act mandates that public housing authorities adopt an admissions policy that promotes the de-concentration of poverty in public housing. HUD emphasizes that the goal of de-concentration is to foster the development of mixed-income communities within public housing. In mixed-income settings, lower-income residents are provided with working-family role models and greater access to employment and information networks. This goal is accomplished through the policy’s income-targeting and de-concentration.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 154

For Section 8 vouchers, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 75 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The remaining balance of 25 percent may have incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI. For public housing, the Housing Act mandates that not less than 40 percent of new admissions must have incomes at or below 30 percent of the AMI. The balance of 60 percent of new admissions may have incomes up to 80 percent of the AMI.

H. Community Participation

Adequate community involvement and representation are important to overcoming and identifying impediments to fair housing or other factors that may restrict access to housing. Decisions regarding housing development in a community are typically made by the City Council or Board of Supervisors, and Planning Commission. The Council members are elected officials and answer to the constituents. Planning Commissioners are residents often appointed by the Council or the Board of Supervisors and serve an advisory role to the elected officials. In addition to the City Council, Board of Supervisors, and Planning Commission, most jurisdictions have appointed commissions, committees, and task forces to address specific issues. Seniors commissions are most typical; however, few jurisdictions have commissions that address the needs of the disabled or families with children, or have a housing task force that oversees housing-related matters.

Community participation can be limited or enhanced by actions or inaction by a public agency. Results of the resident fair housing survey (summarized in Chapter 2 of this AI) indicate that 99 respondents or 19 percent of the 516 respondents felt they had been discriminated against in a housing-related situation. Among those who felt they had been discriminated against, 23 percent indicated that they were discriminated against by a city or county staff person.

A broader range of residents may feel more comfortable approaching an agency with concerns or suggestions if that agency offers sensitivity or diversity training to its staff members that typically interface with the public. In addition, if there is a mismatch between the linguistic capabilities of staff members and the native languages of local residents, non- English speaking residents may be unintentionally excluded from the decision making process. Another factor that may affect community participation is the inadequacy of an agency or public facility to accommodate residents with various disabilities.

While providing fair housing education for the public and housing professionals is critical, ensuring city and County staff understand fair housing laws and are sensitive to the discrimination issues is equally important. The jurisdictions of Camarillo, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, and unincorporated Ventura County sponsor sensitivity training for staff members who interface with the public every one to two years. Sensitivity training is a form of education that attempts to make a person more aware of oneself and others. Such training often incorporates principles of non- discrimination and cultural diversity. However, three jurisdictions (Fillmore, Moorpark, and

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 155

Ojai) indicated that they have not conducted such training for staff. Similarly, all jurisdictions have bi-lingual capabilities to serve Spanish speaking residents. Several jurisdictions, including Ojai, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, and the County are able to accommodate Chinese, Farsi, French, Korean, Mixteco, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. In addition, all jurisdictions’ City Hall or County Administration Buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 5: Public Policies May 2010 Page 156

Chapter 6 - Fair Housing Profile

This chapter provides an overview of the institutional structure of the housing industry with regard to fair housing practices. In addition, this chapter discusses the fair housing services available to residents in Ventura County, as well as the nature and extent of fair housing complaints received by the fair housing provider. Typically, fair housing services encompass the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing/testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information. Tenant/landlord counseling services are usually offered by fair housing service providers but are not considered fair housing services.

A. Fair Housing Practices in the Homeownership Market

Part of the American dream involves owning a home in the neighborhood of one's choice. Homeownership is believed to enhance one’s sense of well-being, is a primary way to accumulate wealth, and is believed to strengthen neighborhoods, because residents with a greater stake in their community will be more active in decisions affecting the future of their community. Not all Americans, however, have always enjoyed equal access to homeownership due to credit market distortions, “redlining,” steering, and predatory lending practices. This section analyzes potential impediments to fair housing in the home loan lending industry.

On December 5, 1996, HUD and the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) entered into a Fair Housing Partnership. Article VII of the HUD/NAR Fair Housing Partnership Resolution provides that HUD and NAR develop a Model Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan for use by members of the NAR to satisfy HUD’s Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing regulations. Yet there is still much room for discrimination in the housing market.

1. The Homeownership Process

The following discussions describe the process of homebuying and likely situations when a person/household may encounter housing discrimination. However, much of this process occurs in the private housing market over which local jurisdictions have little control or authority to regulate. The recourse lies in the ability of the contracted fair housing service providers in monitoring these activities, identifying the perpetrators, and taking appropriate reconciliation or legal actions.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 157

Advertising

The first thing a potential buyer is likely to do when they consider buying a home is search advertisements either in magazines, newspapers, or the Internet to get a feel for what the market offers. Advertisements cannot include discriminatory references such as the use of words describing:

• Current or potential residents; • Neighbors or the neighborhood in racial or ethnic terms; • Adults preferred; • Perfect for empty nesters; • Conveniently located by a Catholic Church; or • Ideal for married couples without kids.

Advertising has become a sensitive area in real estate. In some instances advertisements published in non-English languages may make those who speak English uncomfortable, yet when ads are only placed in English they place non-English speaking residents at a disadvantage. While real estate advertising can be published in other languages, by law an English version of the ad must also be published, and monitoring this requirement is difficult, if not impossible.

Even if an agent does not intend to discriminate in an ad, it would still be considered a violation to suggest to a reader whether or not a particular group is preferred. Recent litigation has also set precedence for violations in advertisements that hold publishers, newspapers, Multiple Listing Services, real estate agents, and brokers accountable for discriminatory ads.

Lending

Initially, buyers must find a lender that will qualify them for a loan. This part of the process entails an application, credit check, ability to repay, amount eligible for, choosing the type and terms of the loan, etc. Applicants are requested to provide a lot of sensitive information including their gender, ethnicity, income level, age, and familial status. Most of this information is used for reporting purposes required of lenders by the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). However, the current mortgage lending crisis has demonstrated widespread misuse of the information, where lower income households and minorities have been targeted for predatory lending.

Lending discrimination can occur during advertising/outreach, pre-application inquiries, loan approval/denial and terms/conditions, and loan administration. Further areas of potential discrimination include: differences in the level of encouragement, financial assistance, types of loans recommended, amount of down payment required, and level of customer service provided.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 158

Appraisals

Banks order appraisal reports to determine whether or not a property is worth the amount of the loan they will be giving. Generally speaking, appraisals are based on the comparable sales of properties within the neighborhood of the property being appraised. Other factors are taken into consideration, such as the age of the structure, any improvements made, location, general economic influences, etc. However, in recent years during the mortgage lending and refinancing frenzy, there have been reports of inflated home values in order to entice refinancing.

Real Estate Agents

Real estate agents may act as agents of discrimination. Some unintentionally, or possibly intentionally, may steer a potential buyer to particular neighborhoods by encouraging the buyer to look into certain areas; others may choose not to show the buyer all choices available. Agents may also discriminate by who they agree to represent, who they turn away, and the comments they make about their clients.

The California Association of REALTORS® (CAR) has included language on many standard forms disclosing fair housing laws to those involved. Many REALTOR® Associations also host fair housing trainings/seminars to educate members on the provisions and liabilities of fair housing laws, and the Equal Opportunity Housing Symbol is also printed on all CAR forms as a reminder.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), are restrictive promises that involve voluntary agreements, which run with the land they are associated with and are listed in a recorded Declaration of Restrictions. The Statute of Frauds (Civil Code Section 1624) requires them to be in writing, because they involve real property. They must also be recorded in the County where the property is located in order to bind future owners. Owners of parcels may agree amongst themselves as to the restrictions on use, but in order to be enforceable they must be reasonable.

The California Department of Real Estate reviews CC&Rs for all subdivisions of five or more lots, or condominiums of five or more units. This review is authorized by the Subdivided Lands Act and mandated by the Business Professions Code, Section 11000. The review includes a wide range of issues, including compliance with fair housing law. The review must be completed and approved before the Department of Real Estate will issue a final subdivision public report. This report is required before a real estate broker or anyone can sell the units, and each prospective buyer must be issued a copy of the report. If the CC&Rs are not approved, the Department of Real Estate will issue a “deficiency notice”, requiring the CC&Rs be revised. CC&Rs are void if they are unlawful, impossible to perform or are in restraint on alienation (a clause that prohibits someone from selling or transferring his/her property). However, older subdivisions and condominium/townhome

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 159 developments may contain illegal clauses which are enforced by the homeowners associations.

Insurance

Many insurance companies have applied strict guidelines, such as not insuring older homes, that disproportionately affect lower income and minority households that can only afford to buy in older neighborhoods. Underwriting guidelines are not public information; however, consumers have begun to seek access to these underwriting guidelines to learn if certain companies have discriminatory policies.

The California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 after the brush fires and riots of the 1960s made it difficult for some people to purchase fire insurance due to hazards beyond their control. The FAIR Plan is designed to make property insurance more readily available to people who have difficulty obtaining it from private insurers because their property is considered "high risk."

The California Organized Investment Network (COIN) is a collaboration of the California Department of Insurance, the insurance industry, community economic development organizations, and community advocates. This collaboration was formed in 1996 at the request of the insurance industry as an alternative to state legislation that would have required insurance companies to invest in underserved communities, similar to the federal Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that applies to the banking industry. COIN is a voluntary program that facilitates insurance industry investments, which provide profitable returns to investors, and economic and social benefits to underserved communities.

Credit and FICO Scores

Credit history is one of the most important factors in obtaining a home purchase loan. Credit scores determine loan approval, interest rates associated with the loan, as well as the type of loan an applicant will be given. Applicants with high credit scores are generally given conventional loans, while lower and moderate range scores revert to FHA or other government-backed loans. Applicants with lower scores also receive higher interest rates on the loans as a result of being perceived as a higher risk to the lender, and may even be required to pay points depending on the type of lending institution used.

Fair Isaac and Company (FICO), which is the company used by the Experian (formerly TRW) credit bureau to calculate credit scores, has set the standard for the scoring of credit history. Trans-Union and Equifax are two other credit bureaus that also provide credit scores, though they are typically used to a lesser degree. In short, points are awarded or deducted based on certain items such as how long one has had credit cards, whether one makes payments on time, if credit balances are near maximum, etc. Typically, the scores range from the 300s to around 850, with higher scores demonstrating lower risk. Lower credit scores require a more thorough review than higher scores and mortgage lenders will often not even consider a score below 600.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 160

FICO scores became more heavily relied on by lenders when studies conducted show that borrowers with scores above 680 almost always make payments on time, while borrowers with scores below 600 seemed fairly certain to develop problems. Some of the factors that affect a FICO score are:

• Delinquencies • New accounts (opened within the last twelve months) • Length of credit history (a longer history of established credit is better than a short history) • Balances on revolving credit accounts • Public records, such as tax liens, judgments, or bankruptcies • Credit card balances • Number of inquiries • Number and types of revolving accounts

However, the current mortgage lending crisis was in part a result of lenders providing mortgage financing to borrowers who are not credit worthy, or steering borrowers who can qualify for lower cost loans to the subprime market.

2. National Association of REALTORS® (NAR)

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has developed a Fair Housing Program to provide resources and guidance to REALTORS® in ensuring equal professional services for all people. The term REALTOR® identifies a licensed professional in real estate who is a member of the NAR; however, not all licensed real estate brokers and salespersons are members of the NAR.

Code of Ethics

Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that “REALTORS® shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. REALTORS® shall not be a party to any plan or agreement to discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”

A REALTOR® pledges to conduct business in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Code of Ethics. Article 10 imposes obligations upon REALTORS® and is also a firm statement of support for equal opportunity in housing. A REALTOR® who suspects discrimination is instructed to call the local Board of REALTORS®. Local Boards of REALTORS® will accept complaints alleging violations of the Code of Ethics filed by a home seeker who alleges discriminatory treatment in the availability, purchase or rental of housing. Local Boards of REALTORS® have a responsibility to enforce the Code of Ethics through professional standards procedures and corrective action in cases where a violation of the Code of Ethics is proven to have occurred.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 161

Additionally, Standard of Practice Article 10-1 states that “REALTORS® shall not volunteer information regarding the racial, religious or ethnic composition of any neighborhood and shall not engage in any activity which may result in panic selling. REALTORS® shall not print, display or circulate any statement or advertisement with respect to the selling or renting of a property that indicates any preference, limitations or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.”

Diversity Certification

NAR has created a diversity certification, “At Home with Diversity: One America” to be granted to licensed real estate professionals who meet eligibility requirements and complete the NAR “At Home with Diversity” course. The certification will signal to customers that the real estate professional has been trained on working with diversity in today’s real estate markets. The coursework provides valuable business planning tools to assist real estate professionals in reaching out and marketing to a diverse housing market. The NAR course focuses on diversity awareness, building cross-cultural skills, and developing a business diversity plan.

3. California Department of Real Estate (DRE)

The California Department of Real Estate (DRE) is the licensing authority for real estate brokers and salespersons. As noted earlier, not all licensed brokers and salespersons are members of the National or California Association of REALTORs®.

The DRE has adopted education requirements that include courses in ethics and in fair housing. To renew a real estate license, each licensee is required to complete 45 hours of continuing education, including three hours in each of the four mandated areas: Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund, and Fair Housing. The fair housing course contains information that will enable an agent to identify and avoid discriminatory practices when providing real estate services to clients.

Prior to July 1, 2007, a real estate salesperson renewing the license for the first time must complete separate three-hour courses in Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund Handling, and Fair Housing to qualify for renewal. All licensees, with the exception of those renewing for the first time, are required to complete a full 45 hours of continuing education for each license renewal. At least 18 hours of course work specifically designated as consumer protection must be completed. An additional 15 hours of approved courses are required, which may be designated as either consumer protection or consumer service courses.

For the initial renewal on or after July 1, 2007, the law requires, as part of the 45 hours of continuing education, completion of five mandatory three-hour courses in Agency, Ethics, Trust Fund Handling and Fair Housing and Risk Management. These licensees will also be required to complete a minimum of 18 additional hours of courses related to consumer protection. The remaining hours required to fulfill the 45 hours of continuing education may be related to either consumer service or consumer protection, at the option of the licensee.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 162

4. California Association of REALTORS® (CAR)

The California Association of Realtors (CAR) is a trade association of 92,000 realtors statewide. As members of organized real estate, realtors also subscribe to a strict code of ethics as noted above. CAR has recently created the position of Equal Opportunity/Cultural Diversity Coordinator. CAR holds three meetings per year for its general membership, and the meetings typically include sessions on fair housing issues. Current outreach efforts in the Southern California area are directed to underserved communities and state-licensed brokers and sales persons who are not members of the CAR.

REALTOR® Associations Serving Ventura County

REALTOR® Associations are generally the first line of contact for real estate agents who need continuing education courses, legal forms, career development, and other daily work necessities. The frequency and availability of courses varies amongst these associations, and local association membership is generally determined by the location of the broker for which an agent works. Complaints involving agents or brokers may be filed with these associations.

Monitoring of services by these associations is difficult as detailed statistics of the education/services the agencies provide or statistical information pertaining to the members is rarely available. The following associations serve Ventura County:

• Conejo Valley Association of REALTORS (CVAR) (which includes the former Simi Valley/ Moorpark Association of REALTORS) • Ojai Valley Board of Realtors • Ventura County Coastal Association of REALTORS

The Realtor Associations that serve Ventura County use the following listing services:

• Ventura County Regional Data Share (VCRDS) • Ojai Valley Multiple Listing Service (OVMLS)

Complaints against members are handled by the associations as follows. First, all complaints must be in writing. Once a complaint is received, a grievance committee reviews the complaint to decide if it warrants further investigation. If further investigation is necessary, a professional standards hearing with all parties involved takes place. If the member is found guilty of a violation, the member may be expelled from the association, and the California Department of Real Estate is notified.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 163

B. Fair Housing Practices in the Rental Housing Market

1. Rental Process

Advertising

Ventura County, like most parts of California, is facing a shortage of rental housing. Most rental properties have low vacancy rates and do not require published advertising. Often, vacancy is announced either via word of mouth of existing tenants or a for-rent sign outside the property. Unless one happens to drive by the neighborhood or have friends or families currently residing at the property, one may not have access to information regarding vacancy. Furthermore, this practice tends to intensify segregation of neighborhoods and properties that already have a high concentration of a racial/ethnic group. When advertising is done, no checks-and-balances mechanism exists to ensure English advertising is provided.

Viewing the Unit

Viewing the unit is the most obvious place where the potential renters may encounter discrimination because landlords or managers may discriminate based on race or disability, or judge on appearance whether a potential renter is reliable or may violate any of the rules.

Credit/Income Check

Landlords may ask potential renters to provide credit references, lists of previous addresses and landlords, and employment history/salary. The criteria for tenant selection, if any, are typically not known to those seeking to rent. Many landlords often use credit history as an excuse when trying to exclude certain groups. Legislation provides for applicants to receive a copy of the report used to evaluate applications.

The Lease

Most apartments are rented under either a lease agreement or a month-to-month rental agreement. A lease is favorable from a tenant's point of view for two reasons: the tenant is assured the right to live there for a specific period of time and the tenant has an established rent during that period. Most other provisions of a lease protect the landlord. Information written in a lease or rental agreement includes the rental rate, required deposit, length of occupancy, apartment rules, and termination requirements.

Typically, the lease or rental agreement is a standard form completed for all units within the same building. However, the enforcement of the rules contained in the lease or agreement may not be standard for all tenants. A landlord may choose to strictly enforce the rules for certain tenants based on arbitrary factors, such as race, presence of children, or disability. In recent years, complaints regarding tenant harassment through strict enforcement of lease agreements as a means of evicting tenants have increased significantly.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 164

Security Deposit

A security deposit is typically required. To deter “less-than-desirable” tenants, a landlord may ask for a security deposit higher than for others. Tenants may also face discriminatory treatment when vacating the units. The landlord may choose to return a smaller portion of the security deposit to some tenants, claiming excessive wear and tear. A landlord may also require that persons with disabilities pay an additional pet rent for their service animals, a monthly surcharge for pets, or a deposit, which is also a discriminatory act.

During the Tenancy

During tenancy, the most common forms of discrimination a tenant may face are based on familial status, race, national origin, sex, or disability. Usually this type of discrimination appears in the form of varying enforcement of rules, overly strict rules for children, excessive occupancy standards, refusal to make a reasonable accommodation for handicapped access, refusal to make necessary repairs, eviction notices, illegal entry, rent increases, or harassment. These actions may be used as a way to force undesirable tenants to move on their own without the landlord having to make an eviction.

2. Apartment Association of California

The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the country's largest statewide trade association for rental property owners and managers. The CAA was incorporated in 1941 to serve rental property owners and managers throughout California. CAA represents rental housing owners and professionals who manage more than 1.5 million rental units. Under the umbrella agency, various apartment associations cover specific geographic areas.

The California Apartment Association has developed the California Certified Residential Manager (CCRM) program to provide a comprehensive series of courses geared towards improving the approach, attitude and professional skills of on-site property managers and other interested individuals. The CCRM program consists of 31.5 hours of training that includes fair housing and ethics along with the following nine course topics:

• Preparing the Property for Market • Professional Leasing Skills and the Application Process • The Move-in Process, Rent Collection and Notices • Resident Issues and Ending the Tenancy • Professional Skills for Supervisors • Maintenance Management: Maintaining a Property • Liability and Risk Management: Protecting the Investment • Fair Housing: It’s the Law • Ethics in Property Management

In order to be certified one must successfully score 75 percent or higher on the comprehensive CCRM final exam.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 165

The CAA supports the intent of all local, State, and federal fair housing laws for all residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the CAA agree to abide by the provisions of their Code for Equal Housing Opportunity.

3. Apartment Association of San Fernando Valley/Ventura County

The Apartment Association of San Fernando Valley/Ventura County is a membership organization covering all of Ventura County, and Los Angeles County north of Mulholland Drive to Kern County. The association publishes a monthly magazine, The Apartment Owner, which is mailed to association members, prospective members, and elected officials. The Apartment Owner keeps owners apprised of their professional responsibilities and opportunities, including articles on fair housing. Sometimes, articles derived from related sources - such as the Los Angeles Council on Human Rights - are reprinted. Also, local agencies - such as the Ventura County Fair Housing Council - are profiled and their services are explained. The Apartment Owner offers relevant books (e.g., The Apartment Manager's Desk Reference, guides to landlording, rental management), which can be purchased through the association. The magazine lists forms related to rental agreements, including fair housing requirements, which are almost always free to members. The forms are submitted to the State Attorney General for review to ensure legal adequacy.

Each new and renewing member of the Apartment Association receives an information packet regarding fair housing and landlord responsibilities. Each year the Apartment Association holds an annual fair housing meeting in the month of April, which has been designated as Fair Housing month.

The Apartment Association explained that, by law, on-site apartment managers, of their own properties, are not required to have a real estate broker's license, nor are they required to have any credential or training. If the property is managed by a property management company, then at least one member of that company must have a real estate broker's license. The State real estate broker's license test includes fair housing questions, and the license renewal process every four years mandates a three-hour course on fair housing.

The Apartment Association offers a voluntary basic educational course for resident apartment managers, which is comprised of four hours and includes a discussion of fair housing law. This course is available to members and property management companies.

4. The National Association of Residential Property Managers (NARPM)

The National Association of Residential Property Managers promotes a high standard of property management business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices within the residential property management field. NARPM is an association of real estate professionals who are experienced in managing single-family and small residential properties. Members of

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 166

the association adhere to a strict Code of Ethics to meet the needs of the community, which include the following duties:

• Protect the public from fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical practices of property managers. • Adhere to the Federal Fair Housing Stature. • Protect the fiduciary relationship of the Client. • Treat all Tenants professionally and ethically. • Manage the property in accordance with the safety and habitability standards of the community. • Hold all funds received in compliance with state law with full disclosure to the Client.

In addition to promoting high standards of business ethics, professionalism and fair housing practices, the Association also certifies its members in the standards and practices of the residential property management industry and promotes continuing professional education.

NARPM offers three designations to qualified property managers and property management firms:

1. Residential Management Professional, RMP ® 2. Master Property Manager, MPM ® 3. Certified Residential Management Company, CRMC ®

Various educational courses are offered as part of attaining these designations including the following fair housing and landlord/tenant law courses:

• Advertising For Fair Housing/ADA (2 to 4 hrs) • Fair Housing Issues of Property Managers (4 hrs) • Fair Housing (3-6 hrs) • Accommodations and Modifications (3 hrs) • Property Management The Property Code (6 hrs) • Landlord/Tenant Laws

5. Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA)

Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association (WMA) is a nonprofit organization created in 1945 for the exclusive purpose of promoting and protecting the interests of owners, operators and developers of manufactured home communities in California. WMA assists its members in the operations of successful manufactured home communities in today's complex business and regulatory environment. WMA has over 1,700 member parks located in all 58 counties of California.

WMA offers an award winning manager accreditation program as well as numerous continuing education opportunities. The Manufactured Home Community Manager (MCM) program is a manager accreditation program that provides information on effective community operations. WMA’s industry experts give managers intensive training on law Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 167

affecting the industry, maintenance standards, HCD inspections, discrimination, mediation, disaster planning, and a full range of other vital subjects. In addition, WMA offers the following services:

• Toll-free hotline for day-to-day management advice • Resident Screening Program • Group Workers’ Compensation Program • Legal Advice • Industry Referrals • Manager Referral Service • Educational seminars on a variety of key topics

Many mobile home park owners from the City of Oxnard have sent their managers to WMA certification and continuing education programs.

C. Fair Housing Services

In general, fair housing services include the investigation and resolution of housing discrimination complaints, discrimination auditing and testing, and education and outreach, including the dissemination of fair housing information such as written material, workshops, and seminars. Landlord/tenant counseling is another fair housing service that involves informing landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities under fair housing law and other consumer protection legislations as well as mediating disputes between tenants and landlords. This section reviews the fair housing services available in the County of Ventura, the nature and extent of fair housing complaints, and results of fair housing testing/audits.

1. Housing Rights Center

The Housing Rights Center (HRC) is a non-profit agency whose mission is to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. The HRC provides the following fair housing related services to all Ventura County residents:

• Counseling on fair housing rights and responsibilities through their toll-free fair housing hotline: 1-800-477-5977. • Investigations of housing discrimination complaints filed by renters, homebuyers, and home seekers, including lending and advertising complaints. • Enforcement of fair housing laws through conciliation, litigation, or administrative referrals. • Landlord/tenant counseling. • Hosts an Annual Housing Rights Summit, which brings interested parties together to discuss fair housing and raises public awareness of fair housing issues and services. • Fair Housing Certification Training Seminars for landlords and property managers in English, Spanish, and Korean.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 168

• Multilingual outreach and education to tenants, home seekers, social service and community groups, city departments, and the public at large, which may be conducted in English, Spanish, Armenian, Korean, Mandarin, or Russian (depending on the audience) and all offices are accessible to disabled persons. • Fair housing literature (available in English, Spanish, Korean, Russian, Mandarin, and Armenian). • Legal services and advocacy. • Education and training for housing professionals.

2. The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura

The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura has a contract with the City of Ventura to provide tenant/landlord services to all residents in the City. The Housing Authority’s Fair Housing/Tenant-Landlord Services program seeks to provide centralized information to educate and raise awareness of the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in a rental relationship. The program provides information, resources, and referral services for Ventura residents on discrimination issues, fair housing complaints, and tenant/landlord disputes.

Primarily, services entail providing information regarding tenant/landlord and fair housing issues and referring residents to local legal clinics or HRC. The Housing Authority typically receives calls regarding issues such as whether or not there is rent control in Ventura County, security deposit returns, and tenant rights. It also receives inquiries relating to the legal process of eviction notices. However, no specific trend has been noted. The Housing Authority receives an average of 250 contacts (walk-ins, phone calls, and letters) each quarter or about 1,000 contacts a year.

3. Many Mansions

Many Mansions is a non-profit organization in Thousand Oaks that operates affordable housing units, special needs housing, and homeless facilities and provides supportive services. Its mission is to promote and provide safe, well-managed housing with on-site, life- enriching services for limited income residents of the Conejo Valley, Ventura County, and their surrounding communities.

More Than Housing is a Many Mansions community resource program designed to meet not only the needs of the current resident population, but also for non-resident families and individuals who may have questions about housing and other services, support and referrals. It is a community resource center with information about:

• Housing, shelters, low-income apartments, transitional housing • Rental assistance referrals • Jobs and career changes and needs, computer and newspaper access • Medical and other support centers • School and parenting support and information Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 169

4. Department of Fair Employment and Housing

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination based on race, sex, religious creed, color, national origin, medical condition (cured cancer only), ancestry, physical or mental disability, marital status, or age (over 40 only). DFEH also investigates complaints of housing discrimination based on the above classes, as well as children/age, and sexual orientation.

DFEH established a program in May 2003 for mediating housing discrimination complaints, which is a first for the State of California and is the largest fair housing mediation program in the nation to be developed under HUD’s Partnership Initiative with state fair housing enforcement agencies. The program provides California’s tenants, landlords, and property owners and managers with a means of resolving housing discrimination cases in a fair, confidential, and cost-effective manner.24 Key features of the program are: 1) program is free of charge to the parties; and 2) mediation takes place within the first 30 days of the filing of the complaint, often avoiding the financial and emotional costs associated with a full DFEH investigation and potential litigation.

The fair housing service providers work in partnership with HUD and DFEH. After a person calls in for a complaint, an interview takes place, documentation is obtained and issues are discussed to decide on the course to proceed. Mediation/conciliation is offered as a viable alternative to litigation. If the mediation/conciliation is successful, the case is closed after a brief case follow-up. If the mediation/conciliation is unsuccessful, the case is then referred to DFEH or HUD. If during case development further investigation is deemed necessary, testing may be performed. Once the investigation is completed, the complainant is advised of the alternatives available in proceeding with the complaint, which include: mediation/conciliation, administrative filing with HUD or DFEH, referral for consideration to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, or referral to a private attorney for possible litigation.

D. Fair Housing Statistics

As part of the enforcement and tracking services provided by the above mentioned fair housing service providers, intake and documentation of all complaints and inquiries result in the compilation of statistics provided to each jurisdiction in the form of quarterly and annual reports.

24 DFEH News Brief, May 29, 2003 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 170

1. Housing Rights Center (HRC)

Statistics reported throughout Ventura County, as with most others, indicate that low income people, regardless of race are the most heavily impacted by fair housing issues. The majority of complaints reported by HRC were based on disability, race/national origin and familial status. Consistent with the demographic makeup of the region, Non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics reported the majority of complaints. However, American Indian/Alaskan Natives made up less than one-half of a percent of the total population, yet they represented two percent of fair housing complainants.

Between Fiscal Years 2005/06 to 2009/10, HRC provided fair housing services to a total of 3,793 clients. Table 83 below shows the number/proportion of clients by jurisdiction. The cities of Oxnard (33 percent), Ventura (16 percent), and Thousand Oaks (12 percent) had the greatest number of clients, while the cities of Fillmore (two percent), Moorpark (three percent), and Santa Paula (three percent) had the fewest clients. Approximately 38 percent of these inquiries/complaints came from persons with disabilities, 29 percent from female- headed households, 20 percent from seniors and 13 percent from households in government subsidized housing. Furthermore, over two-thirds (69 percent) of clients were either extremely low or very low income.

Table 83: Ventura County Clients by Jurisdiction 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- % of County Jurisdiction Total 06 07 08 09 10* Total Camarillo 85 80 79 125 35 404 10.4% Fillmore 20 18 23 10 7 78 2.0% Moorpark 22 22 21 36 12 113 2.9% Ojai 35 29 42 37 3 146 3.8% Oxnard 268 273 336 317 76 1,270 32.7% Port Hueneme 38 38 49 43 8 176 4.5% Santa Paula 14 20 32 33 14 113 2.9% Simi Valley1 70 14 12 161 38 295 7.6% Thousand Oaks 90 118 106 108 36 458 11.8% Ventura 99 157 188 148 38 630 16.2% Unincorporated County 41 51 55 53 6 206 5.2% County Total 782 820 943 1,071 273 3,889 100.0% Note: 1. The City of Simi Valley contracted with the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley during FY 2005 through FY 2007. Statistics from those years came from the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Source: HRC Annual Report, 2009. *2009/10 Statistics are for the 3 month period July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009

Non-Hispanic Whites represented 52 percent of the callers, followed by Hispanic or Latino (34 percent), and Blacks and American Indians (less than one percent each). This racial/ethnic distribution is relatively reflective of the County’s demographics, as Hispanics made up 33 percent of the population, while Non-Hispanic Whites made up 57 percent,

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 171

African Americans made up two percent, and American Indian/Alaskan and the population indicating “Other” combined made up less than 0.5 percent based on the Census. Approximately 72 percent of the complaints were resolved by HRC and 20 percent were referred to other appropriate agencies.

Housing Discrimination Complaints

Between Fiscal Years 2005/06 to 2009/10, 413 complaints of housing discrimination were reported. The most frequent allegations of housing discrimination came from the cities of Oxnard (115 complaints), Ventura (66 complaints) and Camarillo (56 complaints). The basis of discrimination for these complaints pertained mainly to physical disability (57 percent), mental disability (10 percent), and race (seven percent).

Table 84: Discrimination Complaints by Jurisdiction % of 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- Jurisdiction Total County 06 07 08 09 10* Total Camarillo 7 18 11 14 6 56 13.6% Fillmore 0 3 1 0 0 4 1.0% Moorpark 1 3 2 5 2 13 3.1% Ojai 51810 15 3.6% Oxnard 24 30 17 41 3 115 27.8% Port Hueneme 5 5 5 8 0 23 5.6% Santa Paula 0 2 6 2 2 12 2.9% Simi Valley1 15 2 3 18 4 42 10.2% Thousand Oaks 9 20 9 12 1 51 12.3% Ventura 91416198 66 16.0% Unincorporated County 0 7 7 2 0 16 3.9% County Total 75 105 85 122 26 413 100.0% Note: 1. The City of Simi Valley contracted with the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley during FY 2005 through FY 2007. Statistics from those years came from the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Source: HRC Annual Report, 2009. *2009/10 Statistics are for the 3 month period July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009

According to the fair housing survey conducted as part of this AI, familial status, race, source of income and age were identified by respondents as the leading bases for discrimination.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 172

Tenant/ Landlord Counseling

A total of 3,423 Ventura County residents contacted fair housing service providers for assistance with landlord/tenant issues and complaints. Again, most clients came from the cities of Oxnard (34 percent), Ventura (17 percent), and Thousand Oaks (12 percent). The following table provides a breakdown of the number of tenant/landlord clients by jurisdiction:

Table 85: Tenant/Landlord Complaints by Jurisdiction 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- % of County Jurisdiction Total 06 07 08 09 10* Total Camarillo 78 62 68 111 29 348 10.2% Fillmore 20 15 22 10 7 74 2.2% Moorpark 21 19 19 31 10 100 2.9% Ojai 30 28 34 36 3 131 3.8% Oxnard 244 243 319 276 73 1,155 33.7% Port Hueneme 33 33 44 35 8 153 4.5% Santa Paula 14 18 26 31 12 101 3.0% Simi Valley1 2 13 8 143 34 200 5.7% Thousand Oaks 81 98 97 96 35 407 11.9% Ventura 90 143 172 129 30 564 16.5% Unincorporated County 41 44 48 51 6 190 5.6% County Total 654 716 857 949 247 3,423 100.0% Note: 1. The City of Simi Valley contracted with the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley during FY 2005 through FY 2007. Statistics from those years came from the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Source: HRC Annual Report, 2009. *2009/10 Statistics are for the 3 month period July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009

Concerns regarding tenant/landlord issues ranged from eviction to substandard conditions and questions on how to get repairs made. The most prevalent tenant/landlord topics were eviction notices (28 percent) and substandard conditions (16 percent). Landlord tenant complaints reported by HRC were as follows (only the top five complaints are listed below):

• Evictions/Notices – 12 percent • Substandard Conditions – 8 percent • Security Deposit – 5 percent • Lease Terms – 5 percent • Rent Increase – 3 percent

Given the low number of calls received by HRC, it appears that people may not be aware of who to call when they have questions. The low number of calls may also reflect the outreach conducted by certain cities to residents on ways of resolving housing concerns and issues without involving the HRC. According to results of the fair housing survey conducted as part of this AI, only 23 percent of the 56 respondents who experienced housing

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 173

discrimination reported the incident. Among those who had not reported the issue, 59 percent indicated that they did not know where to report the incident and 45 percent indicated that they did not believe any difference or action would result from the reporting.25

Fair Housing Cases

An overwhelming majority of complaints to the HRC did not involve allegations of discrimination (90 percent). Of the 3,793 residents assisted by HRC, 393 reported incidents of housing discrimination. Approximately 30 percent of these discrimination complaints (116 complaints) turned into actual cases. Table 86 displays a breakdown of housing discrimination cases by jurisdiction: the most cases originated in the cities of Oxnard (43 cases), Camarillo (20 cases), Thousand Oaks, and Ventura (15 cases each).

Table 86: Discrimination Cases by Jurisdiction 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- % of County Jurisdiction Total 06 07 08 09 10* Total Camarillo 2 3 4 8 3 20 16.1% Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Moorpark 1 1 0 3 1 6 4.8% Ojai 01210 4 3.2% Oxnard 9 13 3 18 0 43 34.8% Port Hueneme 0 2 2 2 0 6 4.8% Santa Paula 00100 1 0.8% Simi Valley1 52130 11 8.9% Thousand Oaks 5 6 0 3 1 15 12.1% Ventura 24171 15 12.1% Unincorporated County 0 0 2 1 0 3 2.4% County Total 24 32 16 46 6 124 100.0% Note: 1. The City of Simi Valley contracted with the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley during FY 2005 through FY 2007. Statistics from those years came from the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley. Source: HRC Annual Report, 2009. *2009/10 Statistics are for the 3 month period July 1, 2009 - September 30, 2009

Table 87 summarizes the findings of housing discrimination cases in Ventura County. Evidence to sustain the allegation of housing discrimination was found in 79 of the cases (70 percent), while inconclusive evidence was found in 32 of the cases (28 percent). There are currently two cases pending.

25 Respondents were given the option to choose multiple reasons for not reporting the incidence of discrimination. Percentages will, therefore, not equal 100 percent. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 174

The disposition of discrimination cases are summarized in Table 88. A majority of the cases (57 percent) were resolved through successful conciliation while another 28 percent of cases had no possible enforcement action. Approximately 10 percent of cases were withdrawn by the client.

Table 87: Findings in Housing Discrimination Cases Jurisdiction 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10* Total Sustains Allegation Oxnard 2 8 1 13 0 24 Simi Valley 0003 0 3 Ventura 1 4 1 6 0 12 Ventura County 2 12 7 15 4 40 Total 5 24 9 37 4 79 Inconclusive Evidence Oxnard 6 5 2 5 0 18 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 1 0 0 1 0 2 Ventura County 4 1 4 3 0 12 Total 11 6 6 9 0 32 No Evidence of Discrimination Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ventura County 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pending Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ventura County 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 0 0 0 2 2 County Total 16 30 15 46 6 113

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 175

Table 88: Disposition of Housing Discrimination Cases Jurisdiction 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10* Total Successful Conciliation Oxnard 3 6 1 11 0 21 Simi Valley 0003 0 3 Ventura 2 3 0 4 0 9 Ventura County 2 11 6 12 2 33 Total 7 20 7 30 2 66 Client Withdrew Oxnard 2 0 0 2 0 4 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 1 1 1 0 3 Ventura County 1 1 1 2 0 5 Total 3 2 2 5 0 12 No Enforcement Action Possible Oxnard 4 7 2 4 0 17 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 2 0 2 Ventura County 5 1 4 4 0 14 Total 9 8 6 10 0 33 Referred to Litigation Dept Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 1 0 0 0 0 Ventura County 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 Referred to DFEH Oxnard 0 0 0 1 0 1 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ventura County 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 1 0 1 Pending Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simi Valley 0000 0 0 Ventura 0 0 0 0 1 1 Ventura County 0 0 0 0 3 3 Total 0 0 0 0 4 4 County Total 19 30 15 46 6 116

Education and Outreach Efforts

Education is one of the most important components of providing fair housing services. It is also believed to be one of the most important tools in ensuring that fair housing opportunities are provided. By giving citizens the knowledge to understand their rights and responsibilities, to recognize discrimination, locate resources if they need to file a complaint or need general assistance, and much more. The following briefly looks at some of the educational outreach efforts provided by HRC.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 176

HRC provides the County of Ventura with a comprehensive fair housing outreach and education program. Outreach activities ranged from media ads and literature distribution to fair housing presentations. In FY 2009/10, the Housing Rights Center submitted press releases and public service announcements (PSAs) to media outlets that serve Ventura County. HRC submitted press releases to the Ventura County Star, The Acorn, La Opinion, the Santa Paula Times, and California Lutheran University Career Services website. The press releases and PSAs, available in English and Spanish, announced Housing Rights Workshops for the cities of Ojai, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Camarillo, Port Hueneme and Thousand Oaks, as well as volunteer opportunities with the HRC. They also announced the 10th Annual Housing Rights Summit and the Ventura County Fair Housing Accessibility Training.

HRC also collaborated with the Los Angeles Times, which ran a daily Fair Housing Notice entitled ‘Live Free from Discrimination’ in the Real Estate Advertisement Section. The ad provided HRC’s contact number, website address, and office locations, as well as general fair housing and housing discrimination information. The Los Angeles Times also ran HRC ads promoting the 10th Annual Housing Rights Summit and general fair housing education information.

HRC published two newsletters during FY 2008/09. The HRC Bulletin, Fall 2008, Volume 6 included: articles on fair housing litigation, HRC 2007-2008 client statistics, the 9th Annual Housing Rights Summit, an article about Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, and a Q&A section on landlord/tenant issues. The HRC Bulletin, Winter 2009, Volume 7 included: a ‘Save the Date’ reminder for the 10th Annual Housing Rights Summit, and articles concerning: fair housing litigation, the 50th Anniversary of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, housing for people with disabilities, the future of fair housing, and HUD and DOJ’s joint efforts to protect the housing rights of people with disabilities.

Moreover, HRC submitted a ‘Letter to the Editor’ on the Ventura County Star’s website concerning Home Owner Association rules and regulations and their impact on families with children and the fair housing laws.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 177

Between FY 2005/06 and FY 2009/10, HRC conducted 53 Housing Rights Workshops for residents and community members. Workshops were held in:

• Camarillo • Fillmore • Moorpark • Newbury Park • Ojai • Oxnard • Port Hueneme • Santa Paula • Simi Valley • Thousand Oaks

Each workshop provided an overview of the fair housing laws and a Q&A concerning fair housing and landlord/tenant rights and responsibilities. Fair housing training workshops for the Conejo Valley Association of Realtors were held on November 18, 2008 and June 10, 2009. HRC also conducted a Fair Housing 101 presentation for staff members of Many Mansions, an affordable housing provider, on September 19, 2008. 20 staff attended the presentation. On July 9, 2008, in partnership with the County of Ventura and the Area Housing Authority, HRC presented a Fair Housing Accessibility Training for housing industry professionals, county and city staff, and disability and housing advocates. There were 40 attendees at this event.

General Outreach: HRC distributed 5,859 pieces of literature to social service agencies, city government offices and housing industry professionals within the County, including:

• American Legion • Casa Pacifica • American Red Cross • Catholic Charities • ARC of Ventura County • Channel Counties Legal Association • Area Housing Authority of Ventura • Channel Islands Social Services County • Child Development Resources of • Berylwood Family Resource Center Ventura County • Big Brothers Big Sisters • City of Thousand Oaks • Cabrillo Economic Development • Community Action of Ventura Corporation County • California Rural Legal Assistance • Community Assistance Program • Calvary Community Church • Community Works Resource Center • Camarillo City Hall • Community Connections East • Camarillo Library • Conejo Free Clinic • Camarillo Newcomers Club • Conejo Valley Association of • Camarillo Senior Center Realtors • Candelaria American Indian Council • Conejo Valley Senior Concerns • Caregivers • County of Ventura

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 178

• Easter Seals • Salvation Army – Transitional • Emmanuel Presbyterian Living Center • Family Resource Center • Samaritan Center • Fillmore City Hall • Santa Paula City Hall • Fillmore Library • Santa Paula Housing Authority • Goebel Senior Center • Sarah’s House • Goldberg House • Saticoy Library • Grey Law • Senior Home Sharing • H.P. Wright Library • Simi Valley Adult School • HAS Santa Paula Office • Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce • Help of Ojai-Little House • Simi Valley Council for Senior • Holy Trinity Church Housing • Interface Children Family Services • Simi Valley Library • Interface Santa Paula Family • Simi Valley Senior Center Resource Center • Simi Valley Unified School District • Lutheran Social Services • Simi Valley YMCA • Many Mansions • Thousand Oaks City Hall • Meiners Oaks Library • Thousand Oaks Library • Moorpark City Hall • Thousand Oaks Social Security • Moorpark Family Resource Center Office • Moorpark Library • Thousand Oaks United Methodist • Moorpark Senior Center Church • Newbury Park Branch Library • Thousand Oaks-Westlake Village • Oak Park Library Chamber of Commerce • Oak View Library • Tri-County Family Service • OASIS • Ventura Center for Dispute • Ojai City Clerk Settlement • Ojai City Hall • Ventura County Area Agency on • Ojai Library Aging • Ojai Methodist Church • Ventura County Board of Supervisors • Ojai Presbyterian Church • Ventura County Community • Ojai Valley Community Church Foundation • Ojai Valley Station • Ventura County District Attorney • Piru Library • Ventura County Human Services • Port Hueneme Chamber of Agency Commerce • Ventura County Rainbow Alliance • Port Hueneme City Hall • Ventura County Rescue Mission • Port Hueneme Community Center • Ventura County Superintendent of • Port Hueneme Housing Authority Education • Public Social Service Agency of • Ventura County Superior Court Ventura County • Veterans Service Office • Resource Management Agency • Victory Outreach

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 179

HRC also conducted a mailing to 72 lenders and lending institutions that service Ventura County residents. The mailing included a letter introducing HRC and its services and offered a free fair housing training. The mailing also included HRC’s agency brochure, homebuyers and fair housing literature and an excerpt from the HRC Fair Housing training manual. In addition, Camarillo has HRC information in its Housing Resources Guide, which is available at City Hall and on the City’s website.

2. California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)

The mission of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is to protect Californians from employment, housing and public accommodation discrimination, and hate violence. To achieve this mission, DFEH keeps track of and investigates complaints of housing discrimination, as well as complaints in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence. Since 2004, a total of 88 fair housing complaints in the County of Ventura have been filed with DFEH. Most of these complaints involved (42 instances) disability, followed by familial/marital status (22 instances) and race or national origin (12 instances each) (Table 89). The highest numbers of fair housing complaints were filed in the cities of Ventura, Camarillo and Oxnard.

Overall, a total of 134 acts of discrimination were recorded in Ventura County. Ventura City recorded the most acts (44), followed by Camarillo (26) and Oxnard (18). Unequal access to facilities and denial of reasonable accommodation were the most common acts of discrimination (36 instances) in Ventura County. Eviction (29 instances) and unequal terms or occupancy standards (24 instances) were also common Countywide (Table 90).

A majority of Ventura County’s 88 fair housing cases (60 cases) were found to have no probable cause and subsequently closed. An additional 11 cases were closed after successful conciliation and eight cases were withdrawn after a resolution was reached (Table 91).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 180

Table 89: Basis for Discrimination of Complaints filed with DFEH (2004-2009) Source Familial/ Basis of National Sex Race of Sex Disability Religion Marital Retaliation Total Complaints Origin Orientation Income Status Camarillo 2 0 1 0 0 12 0 5 3 23 Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Moorpark 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Oxnard 4 1 3 3 1 3 0 2 0 17 Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Santa Paula 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Simi Valley 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 3 0 12 Thousand Oaks 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 8 Ventura 2 0 3 1 0 14 0 5 7 32 Unincorporated 1 1 2 1 0 5 0 1 0 11 Total 12 2 12 11 142 0 22 10 112 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 181

Table 90: Acts of Discrimination for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2004-2009) Unequal Access Unequal Rent to Facilities/ Act of Refusal to Loan Terms/ # of Eviction Increase/ Harassment Denied Total Discrimination rent/show/sell Withheld Occupancy Cases Surcharge Reasonable Standards Accommodation Camarillo 3 4 0 0 7 5 7 26 17 Fillmore 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 Moorpark 0 1 1 0 3 0 3 8 5 Ojai 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Oxnard 2 5 0 1 6 3 1 18 13 Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Santa Paula 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Simi Valley 3 2 0 0 1 3 3 12 8 Thousand Oaks 2 1 0 0 2 1 3 9 6 Ventura 7 11 0 0 4 7 15 44 27 Unincorporated 3 3 0 1 1 1 2 11 8 Total 21 29 1 2 24 21 36 134 88 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment & Housing, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 182

Table 91: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Complaints Filed with DFEH (2004-2009) No Withdrawal Withdrawal Closing Successful Successful Complainant Probable with without Total Category Conciliation Mediation not Available Cause Resolution* Resolution* Camarillo 2 12 0 2 0 1 17 Fillmore 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Moorpark 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 Ojai 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Oxnard 0 10 1 1 1 0 13 Port Hueneme 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Santa Paula 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Simi Valley 3 4 1 0 0 0 8 Thousand Oaks 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 Ventura 4 20 0 2 1 0 27 Unincorporated 1 4 1 1 1 0 8 Total 11 60 4 8 4 1 88 Source: CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 183

3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints for jurisdictions, including Ventura County. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. From 2004 to September of 2009, 107 fair housing cases were recorded by HUD in Ventura County.

In the County as a whole, disability-related cases were the most common, comprising 48 of the 107 cases (Table 92). Cases concerning familial/marital status (18 complaints), race and national origina1 (13 complaints each) were also regularly reported. The highest numbers of cases were recorded in Ventura (29 complaints), followed by Oxnard (18 complaints) and Simi Valley (14 complaints).

Over three-quarters (83 cases) of the fair housing cases filed with HUD between 2004 and 2009 were closed. A majority of these 83 cases (51 cases) were found to have no probable cause and subsequently closed. An additional 24 cases were closed after successful conciliation or resolution and seven cases were administratively closed (Table 93).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 184

Table 92: Basis for Discrimination of Cases filed with HUD (2004-2009) Source Familial/ Basis of National Sex Race of Sex Disability Religion Marital Retaliation Total Complaints Origin Orientation Income Status Camarillo 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 13 Fillmore 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Moorpark 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 6 Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 Oxnard 3 0 3 2 0 3 0 7 0 18 Port Hueneme 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Santa Paula 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Simi Valley 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 2 14 Thousand Oaks 2 0 3 0 0 4 0 2 1 12 Ventura 4 0 3 0 0 18 0 0 4 29 Unincorporated 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 8 Total 13 0 13 7 048 0 18 8 107 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 185

Table 93: Closing Categories for Fair Housing Cases Filed with HUD (2004-2009) Referred and Compensation for Closing Admin Conciliated or No Cause Closed by Conciliation or Total Category Closure Resolved Cause DOJ Resolution Camarillo 1 1 8 0 0 0 10 Fillmore 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Moorpark 0 4 2 0 0 0 6 Ojai 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 Oxnard 2 2 7 0 0 0 11 Port Hueneme 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Santa Paula 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Simi Valley 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 Thousand Oaks 1 4 6 1 0 0 12 Ventura 1 9 17 0 0 0 27 Unincorporated 2 1 2 0 0 0 5 Total 7 24 51 1 0 0 83 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2009.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 186

4. Complaint-Based Testing

As part of HRC’s service contract with the County of Ventura, testing and surveying methods are conducted as part of the investigation process. Testing refers to the use of individuals who pose as prospective buyers or renters of real estate for the purpose of gathering information, which may indicate whether a housing provider is complying with fair housing laws. The primary purpose of testing has been to identify unlawful housing discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, or familial status. After the intake process of a discrimination complaint is taken, testing is done within two or three days, whenever it is appropriate. Efforts are made to test immediately in complaints by a prospective renter of a refusal to rent. Results of the testing were presented earlier under the discussion of HRC services.

Surveying is conducted when testing is not possible or appropriate, for example, when there are no vacancies or because the allegation is by an in-place tenant complaining of harassment. Surveys of other tenants at the complaint address are conducted instead of testing. When other tenants of the same protected class as the client report similar treatment, surveys provide strong evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination and become invaluable in conciliation efforts and/or settlement negotiations.

E. Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are crimes that are committed because of a bias against race, religion, disability, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In an attempt to determine the scope and nature of hate crimes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting Program collects statistics on these incidents.

To a certain degree, hate crimes are an indicator of the environmental context of discrimination. These crimes should be reported to the Police or Sheriff’s department. On the other hand, a hate incident is an action or behavior that is motivated by hate but is protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Examples of hate incidents can include name calling, epithets, distribution of hate material in public places, and the display of offensive hate-motivated material on one’s property. The freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, such as the freedom of speech, allows hateful rhetoric as long as it does not interfere with the civil rights of others. Only when these incidents escalate can they be considered an actual crime.

Hate crime statistics compiled for the County of Ventura show that a total of 16 hate crimes were committed in 2007. Race and ethnicity based hate crimes were the most common (five instances), followed by religion (four instances) and sexual orientation (two instances). There were no hate crimes recorded on the basis of disability (Table 94). Overall the incidence of reported hate crimes in the County in 2007 was less than one per 10,000 people (0.023 per 1,000 population), and has declined by about 50% since 1997-2002 (0.31 per 1,000 population over a six-year period, or about 0.05 per 1,000 per year.) In 2007, the cities of

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 187

Oxnard and Ventura had a slightly lower incidence of hate crimes per 1,000 people (0.016 and 0.029 respectively) than the cities of Camarillo and Thousand Oaks, whose ratio was 0.047, and the City of Moorpark, whose ratio was 0.055. It should be noted that these statistics may also reflect a higher incidence of reporting crime in these communities, which consistently have very low overall crime rates.

Table 94: Hate Crimes (2007) Basis of Sexual Race Religion Ethnicity Disability Total Complaints Orientation Camarillo 2 0 0 1 0 3 Fillmore 1 1 0 0 0 2 Moorpark 0 0 1 1 0 2 Ojai 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oxnard 1 0 1 1 0 3 Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Paula 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thousand Oaks 1 3 0 2 0 6 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 4 2 5 0 16 Source: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2007.

F. NIMBYism

Many people agree that a variety of housing should be available for people with special needs, such as homeless shelters, affordable housing, and group homes for people with disabilities. However, whether or not these types of housing should be located within their own community is another matter. The following discussion on NIMBYism is not specific to Ventura County and is included below simply to provide context for the analysis of SB 1721 and SB 2 that concludes this chapter.

The Not-in-My-Back-Yard sentiment (NIMBYism) can serve as the most significant constraint to the development of affordable or even market-rate multi-family housing. NIMBYism describes opposition by residents and public officials alike to additional or different kinds of housing units in their neighborhoods and communities. The NIMBY syndrome often is widespread, deeply ingrained, easily translatable into political actions, and intentionally exclusionary and growth inhibiting. NIMBY sentiment can reflect concerns about property values, service levels, community ambience, the environment, or public health and safety. It can also reflect racial or ethnic prejudice masquerading under the guise of a legitimate concern. NIMBYism can manifest itself as opposition to specific types of housing, as general opposition to changes in the community, or as opposition to any and all development.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 188

Community opposition to high-density housing, affordable housing, and housing for persons with special needs (disabilities and homeless) is directly linked to the lack of such housing options for residents in need. In particular, community opposition is typically strongest against high-density affordable housing and group homes for persons with mental disabilities.

Community residents who are especially concerned about the influx of members of racial and ethnic minority groups sometimes justify their objections on the basis of supposedly objective impacts like lowered property values and increased service costs. Racial and ethnic prejudice often is one root of NIMBYism, although NIMBY concerns still exist where racial or ethnic differences are not involved. The California legislature has passed various Anti- NIMBYism housing bills to prevent communities from rejecting affordable housing projects, including:

• SB 1721 - The bill stipulates that a local agency shall not disapprove an affordable housing development project, including agricultural worker housing, or condition approval, including through the use of design review standards, in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low- or moderate-income households.

• SB 2- Expands the Housing Accountability Act, to prohibit localities from denying a proposal to build an emergency shelter, transitional housing or supportive housing if it is needed and otherwise consistent with the locality’s zoning and development standards.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 6: Fair Housing Profile May 2010 Page 189

Chapter 7 - Progress Since 2005

This chapter summarizes and compares key findings of the previous AI documents completed in 2000 and 2005 in order to evaluate the progress toward addressing impediments to fair housing choice. These include:

• 2000-2005 Ventura County Regional AI • 2005-2010 Ventura County Regional AI26 • 2000-2005 City of Oxnard AI

A. Ventura County and Participating Jurisdictions

The following recommendations were directed at the jurisdictions who participated in the 2000-2005 and 2005-2010 Ventura County Regional AIs, which include:

• City of Camarillo • City of Fillmore • City of Moorpark • City of Ojai • City of Port Hueneme • City of Santa Paula • City of Simi Valley • City of Thousand Oaks • City of Ventura • County of Ventura

1. Fair Housing Services

Previous Impediment: Only Santa Paula has a link to HRC’s website; however, information about fair housing issues is not available.

Recommendation: All jurisdictions should provide links to fair housing and other housing resources with current information on their websites. Public counters should also prominently display fair housing information.

Efforts: Currently, the cities of Camarillo, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura all have links to the Housing Rights Center and fair housing resources prominently displayed on their websites.

26 The 2005-2010 Ventura County Regional AI was only a technical update to the 2000-2005 Ventura County Regional AI. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 190

• Camarillo: The City prominently displays fair housing information at its City Hall on the Community Development Department counter. The City’s Housing Resources Guide, which is available at City Hall and on-line, also provides HRC contact information. The information is provided in both English and Spanish.

• Fillmore: The City prominently displays fair housing information on its public counters.

• Ojai: Fair housing information is displayed in the front lobby whenever a group or organization delivers the materials to the City.

• Port Hueneme: Fair Housing posters, in English and Spanish, are prominently displayed in the lobby at City Hall and in the public waiting area of the Port Hueneme Housing Authority.

• Simi Valley: The City prominently displays fair housing information on its public counters.

• Thousand Oaks: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity posters, notices and informational materials are prominently displayed at the City’s Planning Department counter.

• Ventura: The City prominently displays fair housing information on its public counters.

• Unincorporated County: Fair Housing information brochures are available at the County Government Center. The recommendation to increase the effort was considered and the determination was made that current efforts are adequate.

Previous Impediment: Testing in relation to a complaint is conducted when appropriate. Regular testing and audits are not conducted.

Recommendation: The County should consider increasing the budget for and scope of work of their fair housing service provider to include testing and audits for rental properties and lending/sale audits for home purchases.

Efforts: Testing and audits are included in the County’s and Oxnard’s contract with the Housing Rights Center and are provided as necessary.

Previous Impediment: Certain communities have high rates of hate crimes compared to the County as a whole. Specifically, rates of hate crimes in the cities of Ojai and Ventura are more than double the countywide average.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 191

Recommendation: All jurisdictions should consider developing and distributing public education and information materials on tolerance, focusing on sexual orientation, race/ethnic relations, and religion.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: Camarillo displays information from the Housing Rights Center that focuses on a variety of topics including sexual orientation, race/ethnic relations and religion. In addition the Housing Rights Center offers workshops in Camarillo on housing rights including sexual orientation, race/ethnic relations and religion.

• Fillmore: The City has not yet developed this type of information; however, the City does provide specific training to all staff.

• Ojai: The City has not developed this type of information; however, the information is distributed whenever an organization delivers the materials to the City.

• Port Hueneme: Due to budget constraints, the City has not established new programs for the public. The City does provide sensitivity training for City employees.

• Simi Valley: The City accomplishes this through fair housing seminars available to the community at-large.

• Thousand Oaks: A Fair Housing informational workshop is offered annually and noticed on the City’s website, via event flyers and in local media.

• Ventura: The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura provides centralized information to educate and raise awareness of the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in a rental relationship. Fair Housing information is provided on the Housing Authority website and written materials are provided in the Housing Authority office, including posting of Fair Housing law and Fair Housing pamphlet HUD-1260-FHEO. The Housing Authority conducts Fair Housing workshops in conjunction with other agencies.

• Unincorporated County: The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura provides centralized information to educate and raise awareness of the rights and responsibilities of both tenants and landlords in a rental relationship. Fair Housing information brochures are available at the County Government Center. The recommendation to increase the effort was considered and the determination was made that current efforts are adequate.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 192

2. Public Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development

The following recommendations were made in the 2000 AI because of the importance they have for provision of housing choice in Ventura County. Given current market conditions, it is even more important now than five years ago that jurisdictions review their policies and encourage the development of affordable housing.

Previous Impediment: Three jurisdictions indicated that no sensitivity training is provided to their staff. Only one jurisdiction indicated that training is provided annually.

Recommendation: The County and participating jurisdictions should provide sensitivity training to staff that interfaces with the public to ensure that staff understand fair housing laws and are sensitive to proper language and behavior when dealing with groups with special needs.

Efforts: As of November 2009, most jurisdictions in Ventura County offered periodic sensitivity training. Only the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, and Ojai did not offer any sensitivity training to its staff.

Previous Impediment: Voter-initiated land use measures such as the approved SOAR measures, while not necessarily impediments to affordable housing, do limit all urban development, including residential development.

Recommendation: When updating the Housing Element as required by State law, all jurisdictions should realistically assess their residential sites inventory in accommodating the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As necessary and appropriate, the jurisdictions should consider land use policies and housing programs that would help achieve the RHNA.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: In its state certified 2009 Housing Element, the City promised that as General Plan amendments are evaluated, lands shall be considered for reuse, mixed-use and infill potential, with affordable housing opportunities through the designation of appropriate densities and land use types, in order to provide opportunities for affordable housing commensurate with the City’s regional housing need.

• Fillmore: The City is currently updating the Housing Element. There are various new programs proposed to help fulfill the RHNA. Among them, is a program proposing to re-zone properties, which could potentially accommodate up to 266 units. The Element is still in draft form and has yet to be adopted by the Council, therefore, the new programs in the draft could change.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 193

• Ojai: The City is currently undertaking the Housing Element Update and is considering land use policies that would achieve RHNA, including designating sites for affordable demonstration projects spearheaded by the City.

• Port Hueneme: A variety of residential types are provided for in Port Hueneme, ranging from single-family residential (seven units per acre) to multi-family residential and mixed use (25 units per acre), with higher densities achievable through the City’s density bonus provisions. Future population and residential growth in the City will likely occur in the redevelopment area which encompasses approximately one quarter of the City’s total civilian land area. The 2008-2014 Housing Element Technical Background Report identifies key development sites within the redevelopment area for single-family, multi-family and mixed use residential. The City’s Redevelopment Agency will offer a variety of both financial and regulatory incentives to facilitate development on these sites. The City’s 2008-2014 Housing Element was approved and certified by HCD on October 21, 2009.

• Santa Paula: In its 2008 Housing Element, the City’s sites analysis indicates that Santa Paula has adequate capacity to accommodate its share of regional housing needs for lower-income units, but not for moderate or above-moderate units. To address its share of regional housing needs, the City promised to identify additional sites and provide appropriate land use designations by 2010 to meet the City’s RHNA objectives for new housing, including evaluating the feasibility of re-designating High Density Residential (R-4) properties to Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) in order to reflect development trends and market conditions.

• Simi Valley: The City will ensure that an adequate supply of vacant and underutilized sites at appropriate densities and development standards to accommodate the remaining RHNA is available by maintaining an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites and providing this inventory to interested developers.

• Thousand Oaks: The City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element Update includes a detailed inventory of residential sites with the capacity to meet the City’s RHNA requirements, as well as a program (Program 1 (a)) to re-zone sites to meet those requirements.

• Ventura: The City has implemented an Inclusionary Housing policy requiring all developments of more than seven units to include affordable units.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 194

• Unincorporated County: The County does not have sufficient inventory of vacant, unincorporated land to meet its lower-income housing needs for the remainder of the planning period (to June 30, 2014). This lack of inventory was created, in part, when the State of California purchased Ahmanson Ranch in 2002, effectively eliminating a significant portion of the County’s urban residential land inventory. To address the deficiency of land inventory for lower income housing, the following actions will be taken by the County:

o Inventory and assess potential sites for suitability. o Prepare an EIR covering the development impacts of selected sites. o Amend the General Plan and Area Plans to increase density on selected sites and incorporate inclusionary housing policies. o Amend Zoning Ordinance Code text to allow ministerial residential permits on selected sites (e.g., overlay zone, commercial/residential mixed-use). o Amend the zoning of selected sites.

Recommendation: All housing elements should include policies and programs specific to fair housing goals and objectives.

Efforts: All jurisdictions have included specific fair housing programs, goals, and objectives as a part of their 2008 housing elements.

Recommendation: As a prerequisite for any recipient receiving locally administered housing assistance funds (e.g., first-time homebuyer, new construction, rental rehabilitation assistance), the recipients should be required to acknowledge their understanding of fair housing laws and affirm their commitment to the laws.

Efforts:

• Fillmore: The City does require recipients of housing assistance funds to acknowledge their understanding of fair housing laws and affirm their commitment to the laws.

• Ojai: The City works with HELP of Ojai to administer certain housing assistance funds. Recipients are asked to acknowledge their understanding of fair housing laws and affirm their commitment to the laws, sometimes via a deed restriction when appropriate.

• Port Hueneme: All applicants for the City’s Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program and Home Maintenance Incentive Rebate Program are required to certify that they have received and carefully examined the Fair Lending Notice pursuant to the Housing Financial Discrimination Act of 1977 that is included in every application packet. Applicants for the Home Buyer Assistance Program are required to sign the Fair Lending Notice to acknowledge receipt.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 195

• Simi Valley: Recipients receiving loans from the City must sign a Fair Lending Notice that describes discriminatory lending practices and where complaints or questions may be directed.

• Thousand Oaks: In March 2006, the City created guidelines for Affirmative Marketing Procedures and Requirements for affordable units according to Federal and State regulations. A Fair Lending Notice is signed by each applicant as part of the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.

• Ventura: The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura includes a Housing Discrimination Complaint form (HUD 903) in the intake packet for recipients of Section 8 and Public Housing assistance. Fair Housing informational booklets (HUD 1260-FHEO) are also available at the Housing Authority offices.

• Unincorporated County: All recipients of HOME funding report annually on their affirmative marketing activities. A variety of methods were used to reach out to potential beneficiaries of the HOME program including using the Equal Housing Opportunity Logo on program applications, displaying the Logo in offices, community rooms, and other common areas; advertising in local newspapers, work sites, and churches.

Recommendation: While recognizing that funds for subsidizing housing are limited, jurisdictions should continue to encourage the development of affordable housing through: (1) development fee waivers/reductions, (2) streamlined permit processing, (3) flexibility in applying design and development standards, (4) achievable density bonuses, (5) other general plan, administrative, and zoning efforts, and (6) public- private partnerships with developers of affordable housing.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: In its 2009 Housing Element, the City promised to continue to expedite entitlements and assist with the financing of non-profit affordable housing projects. In addition, the City promises to (1) remove constraints on the development of housing for farmworkers including minimum parcel size, and requiring the farmworkers to work on the property the housing is located, (2) establish procedures and development standards to promote the certainty in approval, and (3) ensure density requirements will permit a variety of housing types (i.e. multifamily, dormitory, etc.).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 196

• Fillmore: The current draft of the Housing Element contains a program proposing to streamline the permit process for projects that are environmentally conscious; contains a program to amend the development standards for second units; and a program to update the Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with existing state law.

• Moorpark: The City of Moorpark adopted density bonus provisions that are consistent with state requirements in 2009. The City also went one step further in creating density bonus provisions for affordable housing that allow for a density bonus of 100 percent for projects that are 100 percent affordable and 75 percent density bonus for projects that are 60 percent affordable.

• Ojai: The City of Ojai encourages the development of affordable housing by exempting affordable housing from the City’s strict traffic policies that pertain to market rate housing. The City has dedicated funding for demonstration projects that incorporate affordability and green building techniques. The City plans on partnering with an affordable housing developer to ensure the projects will be built.

• Port Hueneme: The City has formed a Development Review Committee to assist project applicants in the pre-application phase to avoid potential problems and time delays during processing of formal applications. In addition, the City has acted to disband its Planning Commission, thereby significantly shortening review times on projects requiring discretionary approvals. The City employs a Planned Development Overlay Zone to provide for flexibility in development, creativity and imaginative design, and the development of parcels as coordinated projects involving a mixture of residential densities and housing types. In addition, the City’s density bonus provisions promote the expansion of affordable housing using a variety of regulatory incentives and concessions including fee waivers/reductions, flexible density bonuses, shared participation, and relaxation of zoning, architectural, and development standards.

• Simi Valley: The City is currently drafting updates to its Housing Element and the density bonus ordinance. The City routinely works with affordable housing developers for the construction of residential projects that include affordable units.

• Thousand Oaks: In 2008, the City adopted a density bonus ordinance which includes several waivers and concessions to encourage the development of new affordable housing units. The 2006-2014 Housing Element update includes programs to encourage the future development of affordable units and also requires the City to review existing development regulations concerning parking structures and building height limitations and to recommend revisions, if necessary, to ensure that these regulations do not unreasonably constrain the development of affordable housing. Currently, the City’s Redevelopment Agency

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 197

is partnering with the Area Housing Authority, and the non-profit housing development corporation Many Mansions, to finance the development of two (2) 60-unit affordable rental projects.

• Ventura: Ventura encourages the development of affordable housing through the implementation of flexibility in applying design and development standards, achievable density bonuses, other general plan, administrative, and zoning efforts, and public-private partnerships with developers of affordable housing. The City is currently considering the development of fee waivers/reductions and streamlined permit processing.

• Unincorporated County: On March 2, 2009, the County of Ventura implemented new procedures for applications for discretionary permits. The new procedures apply to applicants submitting any of the following discretionary permits: Tract Map, Parcel Map, Discretionary Parcel Map Waiver, Conditional Certificate of Compliance, Conditional Use Permit, Planned Development Permit, Variance, Administrative Variance, Zone Change, and Minor or Major Modifications to any of the permits listed above (See the RMA Planning website for more info at http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/Permit_Submit/index.html

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should continue to be proactive in forming partnerships with non-profit housing developers to develop affordable housing. Nonprofit housing developers have access to a wider range of federal and state funds. Development of affordable housing by nonprofit organizations also ensures the long- term affordability of such housing. In addition to assisting in site identification, land acquisition and write-down of land costs (as needed), the County and city agencies (i.e. redevelopment agencies) could play a role in the development of affordable housing by actively assisting and supporting the developers throughout the planning and approval process.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: In its Housing Element that was certified by the State in 2009, the City promised to continue to meet with non-profits (such as the Many Mansions and Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County) to discuss potential affordable housing project opportunities within the City, especially for very-low- and extremely-low-income households whenever feasible.

• Fillmore: The draft Housing Element contains a program promoting a partnership between the City and housing advocates/developers to examine cooperative efforts and expand the City’s supply of affordable housing. It also contains a program to support non-profit housing sponsors in their efforts to make more housing available to households of lower income; inform them of funding opportunities, support grant applications, and identify available sites for potential development.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 198

• Ojai: The City has dedicated funding for demonstration projects that incorporate affordability and green building techniques. The City plans on partnering with an affordable housing developer to ensure projects are built. The City’s Redevelopment Agency has designated $500,000 for a Workforce Demonstration Project and $500,000 for a Senior Affordable Housing Project. The City has been in preliminary discussions with local affordable housing developers regarding these projects. Staff intends to begin preparation of Request for Proposals for both projects in the spring of 2010.

• Port Hueneme: In areas targeted by the Housing Element, the City and/or its redevelopment agency seek partnerships with non-profit housing developers to provide affordable housing. For example, the City is currently in discussion with a non-profit housing developer to acquire, rehabilitate, and operate of a 90-unit motel complex as an affordable housing project offering shared financial participation plus relaxation of zoning, architectural, and development standards and potential housing assistance payments.

• Santa Paula: Non-profit housing developers have played a key role in providing affordable housing for working families and seniors in Santa Paula. The City can grant land write-downs, regulatory incentives, and direct financial assistance to private developers to provide both ownership and rental housing to lower- and moderate-income households, including working families and seniors. In recent years, the City worked with non-profit housing providers to develop the 40 unit Harvard Place apartments for very-low- and extremely-low-income persons, a 41- unit apartment complex for farm worker families and a 24-unit apartment complex for very low-income families. The City will continue to work with non- profit developers of self-help housing, such as Habitat for Humanity and the Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corporation to provide additional ownership housing opportunities for very low-income households, such as non-migrant agricultural workers. The City may assist these developers in acquiring and assembling properties and in subsidizing on-site and off-site requirements.

• Simi Valley: The City partnered with Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District (RSRPD) and Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County to build a three unit Habitat project on surplus park district land near the intersection of Royal and Sequoia Avenues. The RSRPD offered the land to the City for a Habitat project, and the City purchased and deeded the property to Habitat, where the City also participated in the financing of the units to make them affordable to very low- income families. The City also partnered with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation to provide 11 affordable units to low-income families out of a 26-unit single-family detached project known as Kuehner Homes on the east side of Kuehner Drive, south of the State Highway 118. Many Mansions received both CDBG grants and redevelopment loans to assist with the acquisition and rehabilitation of an eight unit apartment complex to house their clients.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 199

• Thousand Oaks: The City of Thousand Oaks and the Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency (RDA) have ongoing partnerships with the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura (AHA) and private, non-profit housing developer Many Mansions, for the development of new affordable rental units and the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units. In its FY 2006-2014 Housing Element Update, the City also stated its desire to work with other local non-profits, such as Habitat for Humanity, by identifying potential development sites and providing financial assistance, if appropriate, to provide additional affordable homeownership opportunities. The City will continue to assist housing groups to secure local and other funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-family affordable structures, as well as coordinate with non-profit housing developers to identify opportunities and provide support with applications, as necessary.

• Ventura: Ventura is currently partnered with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation in the development of a 60-unit affordable housing project, with the Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura for the development of 12- unit affordable project, and with Peoples’ Self Help Housing Corporation in the development of a 42-unit affordable housing rehabilitation project. Additionally, Ventura partnered with PLACE (Projects Linking Arts Community & Environment) in the development of a 54-unit affordable housing project for artists, and 15-unit Supportive Housing project, which have just been completed and is currently being occupied.

• Unincorporated County: Non-profit recipients of County HOME funding for affordable housing projects include Habitat for Humanity, Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, Area Housing Authority of Ventura County, and People’s Self Help.

Previous Impediment: In a tight housing market, seniors, particularly those with disabilities, often face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations or face targeted evictions. Seniors represent 10 percent of the County’s total population. The jurisdictions with the largest proportion of seniors are Ojai (17.9 percent) and Camarillo (17.0 percent). Overall, elderly households may be less able to make improvements to their housing, deal with a challenging situation (such as confronting the landlords or managers), or to find affordable housing due to limited income and disabilities. Seniors are very vulnerable to housing discrimination.

Large households often face discrimination in the housing market, particularly in the rental housing market on the basis of excess wear and tear to the units and potential safety and liability issues due to presence of children. This special needs group experienced a higher level of housing problems than other households.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 200

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should expand the variety of housing types and sizes. In addition to persons with disabilities, senior households can also benefit from a wider range of housing options. To allow seniors to age in place, small one-story homes, townhomes or condominiums, or senior rentals may be needed.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: The City of Camarillo included a program in its state certified 2009 Housing Element that requires a range of unit sizes in the affordable units of density bonus projects in order to address the needs of seniors, larger households and reduce overcrowding. In order to encourage the provision of elderly, affordable and rental housing under the Residential Development Control System, the City altered its allocation criteria to award bonus points for projects that offer a portion of its total units as elderly, affordable or rental housing. Finally, the City’s Municipal Code was amended in 2003 to make the approval of a second residential unit an administrative process, which has allowed for additional housing opportunities in the City.

• Fillmore: The draft Housing Element (HE) contains a program targeting special needs groups including large families, the elderly and the disabled. The program calls for prioritizing funds benefiting projects for these groups. Additionally, the draft H.E. contains a program supporting three and four bedroom units to accommodate large families and prevent overcrowding. A new apartment building exclusively for seniors was completed in 2007, which received a density bonus and funding from the City’s Redevelopment Agency.

• Ojai: The Ojai Planning Commission has been guiding developers to provide smaller one-story homes near City services. A new concept has been developed by a local developer for nine 1,000 square foot homes near the City’s downtown. Preliminary analysis by staff indicates that the project would be the type of housing that would be beneficial to seniors and to those with disabilities. The units appear to be affordable by design. Also, the City has a Home Modification Grant Program that is administered by HELP of Ojai that assists low income applicant to make safety modifications such as wheel chair ramps, grab bars, etc., to allow the applicant to remain in their home.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 201

• Port Hueneme: The City continues to implement and promote the Second Unit Ordinance to encourage second unit construction. Second units are of particular benefit in a community like Port Hueneme where less than one acre of vacant residentially zoned land remains for new construction and second units can be integrated within existing single-family neighborhoods. In addition, many of the City’s lower income elderly reside in older neighborhoods, indicating that second units can help address the needs of elderly homeowners, as well as renters. According to the County’s 2009 workshop on the “state” of senior housing, Port Hueneme provides 923 units of for-sale and rental dwellings dedicated to seniors with more than two-thirds of those existing as one-story condominium and townhomes.

• Simi Valley: Mixed-Use developments incorporate a variety of commercial uses in close proximity to residential units. Currently, mixed-use developments are not very common in Simi Valley. However, the City recognizes that because vacant land within the City is limited, future housing growth will need to include a significant amount of multi-family, attached and mixed-use development. The City’s Metrolink station offers opportunities for transit-oriented uses, including mixed-use development, new commercial/entertainment uses, and new housing. During the next few years, the City will work to focus higher density developments and mixed-use projects in areas adjacent to transit stations, along transit corridors and commercial corridors, near job centers, and other appropriate areas throughout the City.

• Thousand Oaks: In July 2008, the City adopted Ordinance 1503-NS to increase protections for mobile home park tenants by discouraging closures and ensuring adequate relocation assistance is provided if closure occurs. The City collaborates with the Area Housing Authority which operates several senior affordable rental complexes in Thousand Oaks; and with Many Mansions which provides supportive housing units for persons with special needs at its Esseff Village and Richmond Terrace complexes. Pursuant to 2006-2014 Housing Element update, the City will evaluate its existing Secondary Unit Ordinance (Ordinance 1412-NS, adopted July 15, 2003) and make appropriate revisions to generate more secondary unit (i.e. granny flat) development. Finally, the Housing Element states the City will continue to support local groups that provide assistance to special needs households and will promote better accessibility through the use of elevators in multi-story developments.

• Ventura: Ventura partnered in the development of the Chapel Lane Senior Housing project and the Bella Vista Seniors Condominium project.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 202

• Unincorporated County: The Planning Division encourages the creation of affordable housing in the unincorporated portion of the County through the use of permit processing assistance and Zoning Ordinance amendments. Activities include the following: Affordable/Elderly Housing, Condominium Conversions, Second Dwelling Units, and Farmworker Housing. For more info visit: http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/Programs/housing.html

Previous Impediment: Concentrations of licensed residential care facilities exist in Camarillo, Ojai, and Ventura. However, several communities have limited community care options for persons with special needs.

Recommendation: The shortage of supported housing for persons with disabilities, such as community residential care facilities, is a community concern. Jurisdictions should explore ways to develop supported housing through non-profit housing developers and service providers. Several successful models exist in the County such as projects developed by Many Mansions, Turning Point, and Partners in Housing. Local jurisdictions should review their zoning ordinances and permit processing to ensure that they are not inhibiting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: The recently certified Housing Element states that the City’s building codes require that new residential construction comply with the federal American with Disabilities Act that includes provisions for a minimum percentage of units in new developments to be fully accessible to the physically disabled. In addition, building or zoning modifications to accommodate persons with disabilities are typically approved over the counter. To strengthen the City’s present programs the recently updated Housing Element includes a program to adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance to facilitate the processing of requests and provide exceptions in zoning and land use regulations for persons with disabilities.

• Fillmore: The City is proposing to do a comprehensive zoning ordinance update in 2010 to review development standards and the permit process, removing constraints that could cause delays and unnecessary expenses to projects benefiting special needs groups, which includes the disabled. The draft H.E. contains a program to this effect.

• Ojai: The Community Development Department is currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that, among other issues, the ordinances are not inhibiting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 203

• Port Hueneme: As part of its 2008-2014 Housing Element, analysis was provided of the City’s zoning, permits, fees, and other existing and potential limitations on housing special needs groups including persons with disabilities. In addition, on June 15, 2009, the City adopted an ordinance that provides a procedural process for disabled or handicapped individuals to seek reasonable accommodation with respect to the City’s land use, zoning, engineering, and other regulations including requirements for fair housing.

• Simi Valley: The City has done a review of its Zoning Ordinance and not found any inhibiting factors. The City has also adopted a reasonable accommodation process and standards for adaptability of all rental and senior housing.

• Thousand Oaks: The City’s 2006-2014 Housing Element includes the following programs and City actions to be completed by 2010:

o Program 15: The City Council will be requested to adopt an ordinance to define transitional housing and supportive housing such that they are permitted subject to same standards as conventional residential uses of the same type in the same zone.

o Program 16: The City Council will be requested to adopt an ordinance to define residential care facilities for seven or more persons and adopt regulations for their establishment.

o Program 17: The City Council will be requested to adopt an ordinance to remove constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, including the establishment of procedures for making reasonable accommodations.

• Ventura: Ventura is currently undergoing a review of its Zoning Ordinance and permit processing procedures.

• Unincorporated County: There are no unreasonable hardship exceptions to disability access requirements for residential construction. New multifamily residential dwellings and facilities must also include disabled access standards without exception.

Previous Impediment: Only one jurisdiction has a Reasonable Accommodations policy or ordinance.

Recommendation: All jurisdictions should consider adopting formal Reasonable Accommodations policies and procedures.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 204

Efforts: Currently, the cities of Port Hueneme and Simi Valley have formal Reasonable Accommodations procedures outlined in their Municipal Codes, and, in 2009, the County of Ventura processed an ordinance amendment for Reasonable Accommodation, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(3). This ordinance sets out a process for ensuring Reasonable Accommodation, and includes provisions for making, reviewing and processing a formal request for Reasonable Accommodation. It also includes factors that should be considered when reviewing a request, conditions of approval, and an appeals process. In addition, the cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Ojai, Port Hueneme and Thousand Oaks have all promised to adopt formal Reasonable Accommodations procedures in their 2008-2014 Housing Elements.

Previous Impediment: Physical disability is the greatest cited basis for discrimination according to the Housing Rights Center and the Department of Fair Housing and Employment. Mentally ill tenants also face the barrier of stigmatization and biases from landlords and managers.

Recommendation: In response to discrimination against people with disabilities becoming an increasing fair housing concern, jurisdictions should consider promoting universal design principles in new housing developments.

Efforts:

• Ojai: The City encourages universal design principles in new housing developments; however no materials and no ordinances have been developed for distribution for this purpose.

• Port Hueneme: The City enforces Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that governs the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Furthermore, Government Code Section 12955.1 requires 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family buildings without elevators consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units to provide accessible routes, bathrooms, parking, and common areas. The City has not adopted unique restrictions that would constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code, and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act is assessed and enforced by the City’s Building and Safety Division as part of the permit review process.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 205

• Simi Valley: The City adopted a universal design ordinance, which is codified in its Municipal Code, Section 9-24.070(E)(3) and applies to condominium conversions for sale to seniors. In addition, the City has standard conditions regulating the implementation of universal design guidelines for any new proposed rental project and all senior housing projects.

• Thousand Oaks: The City has not adopted universal design principles; however, the City complies with California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 11A, “Housing Accessibility”.

• Ventura: Ventura does promote universal design, and through the Housing Preservation Program, the City provides funds for seniors and people with disabilities to make universal design remodels.

3. Lending and Insurance Practices

Previous Impediment: n/a27

Recommendation: The County should send copies of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) to the ten most active conventional mortgage lenders, as identified in the report.

Efforts: Copies of the AI were sent to the top ten most active lenders as identified in the AI.

Previous Impediment: Approval rates differ significantly among lenders in Ventura County, with the largest discrepancy at 24 percentage points. (HMDA data can only be used to identify potential issues. Data available to the public does not contain detailed information to conclude discriminatory practices.)

Recommendation: Participating jurisdictions should review the lending patterns of all financial institutions that provide financial services to the jurisdictions and participate in jurisdiction-sponsored loan programs. Special attention should be directed to home purchase lending in lower income and minority concentration areas.

In selecting financial institutions to participate in Housing Programs, the participating jurisdictions should consider the lender’s performance history with regard to home loans in low/moderate income areas and minority concentration areas, as well as the lender’s activity in other Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) activities such as participation in affordable rental housing projects under programs such as bond financing, tax credit, or the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program.

27 This recommendation relates to general lending practices did not have a specific accompanying impediment. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 206

Efforts:

• Camarillo: Camarillo presently does not use lenders in implementing housing programs. If the City did partner with a lender the City would review their lending pattern to insure they were not redlining sections of the community as well as examine their Community Reinvestment Act activities.

• Ojai: The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program has not been well utilized, in part due to low home mortgage interest rates and new loan products available on the market that access home equity. However, due to recent economic events that have restricted lines of credit, the program may become more heavily used. When there is a request for a loan, the City will reviewing the lending patterns of financial institutions that provide financial services.

• Port Hueneme: As part of the 2008-2014 Housing Element, the City reviewed not only the number, amount, and location (by census tract) of mortgage and rehabilitation loans originated, but also the income, gender, and race of the applicants and foreclosure rates. The City/RDA has entered into a lending agreement for its homebuyer program with Citibank and Wells Fargo. Both lenders actively promote special lending programs targeted to low and moderate income areas.

• Simi Valley: The City sponsors a first-time homebuyer program and an owner- occupied home rehabilitation program. The homebuyer program is geared to qualified low-income purchasers, and the rehabilitation program is geared toward the very low-, low- or moderate-income owner-occupants for the rehabilitation program. The City works closely with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation’s lending arm if additional write down support is necessary to make homes affordable to qualified households.

• Thousand Oaks: The City of Thousand Oaks’s First-time Homebuyer Down Payment Assistance Program has been on hold since 2003. Staff is currently working on updating this program in order to improve its effectiveness with today’s market and lending conditions. A City application is required in order to purchase an affordable unit restricted by the City. Application procedures require income documentation and lending product information. Some of the items the City reviews are buyer’s income, household size, and affordability of the loan product.

• Ventura: Ventura reviews lending patterns on a continuous basis. Through the City’s affordable housing development and loan programs, outreach is directed to areas with concentrations of lower income and minority residents.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 207

• Unincorporated County: The County and participating jurisdictions monitor the lending practices of all entities involved in the homebuyer program to insure fair housing requirements are met.

Previous Impediment: Loan approval rates generally have a positive correlation to household income. Approval rates were highest among the upper-income applicants and lowest among lower-income applicants. Overall, government-backed loans represented only two percent of all loan applications, though the majority of government-backed loan applications were approved. The limited use of government-backed financing is related primarily to the high cost of housing in Ventura County.

Recommendation: Because of the shortage of rental housing, homeownership is particularly important as a vehicle for providing decent housing for working families. In cooperation with lending institutions, local associations of realtors and fair housing providers, jurisdictions should provide outreach to inform lower income households of special local, state, and federal homebuyer assistance programs.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: The Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura, of which Camarillo is a member, offers monthly home ownership classes that inform lower income households of special local, state and federal homebuyer assistance programs.

• Ojai: The City of Ojai works with HELP of Ojai to provide outreach to lower income households on a variety of City sponsored programs.

• Port Hueneme: Community Development staff has made presentations to the Ventura County Coastal Association of Realtors to inform brokers about programs that can assist first time home buyers. In addition, articles about the City’s various affordable housing programs appear at least annually in the Hueneme Magazine distributed to all local residents.

• Simi Valley: The City provides information through its website, the local government cable TV channel, over the phone, and at its public counter. In addition, staff speak to the Council on Aging, various realtors, and other community groups about the availability of its first-time homebuyer program.

• Thousand Oaks: Housing opportunity brochures are located at the City’s Planning Department counter. Brochures include information on Affordable Housing units within the City limits, First-Time Homebuyer information, Emergency Housing Assistance, Fair Housing and Landlord/Tenant Counseling, and Homeownership Loss Prevention. Brochures are updated annually. Information can also be found on the City’s website at www.toaks.org

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 208

• Ventura: The Housing Authority of the City of San Buenaventura conducts several outreach programs a year to the various city council including Westside, Mid-Town and Eastside. They also conduct outreach to mobile home parks homeowners and condominium homeowner associations.

Previous Impediment: Black and Hispanic applicants frequently received the highest denial rates regardless of income. It was also found that African-Americans are approximately twice as likely as Non-Hispanic White applicants to refinance on the subprime market.

Recommendation: Step up outreach efforts in Black and Hispanic communities in order to improve loan origination/approval rates and increase awareness of and education about homeownership opportunities.

Efforts:

• Camarillo: Camarillo does not have concentrations of minority populations. That said all housing information is offered in both English and Spanish. This includes the Area Housing Authority of the County of Ventura Home Ownership Classes that informs lower income households of special local, state and federal homebuyer assistance programs.

• Ojai: The City of Ojai provides outreach and informational handouts at the City Hall lobby when available, to increase awareness of and education about homeownership opportunities for all persons of the community, including Black and Hispanic.

• Simi Valley: Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) advertised and conducted foreclosure prevention workshops in both English and Spanish. In addition, CEDC also made required first time homebuyer education seminars available in Spanish.

• Thousand Oaks: The City collaborates with the Conejo Valley Association of Realtors (CVAR) Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Fair Housing Committee and has co-sponsored a series of televised educational forums on homeownership opportunities, including those for lower-income households, particularly Hispanic residents.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 209

• Ventura: The City of Ventura Affordable Housing program and the Home buyers Assistance program are discussed in detail at Homeowners Seminars conducted by various organizations providing homeownership education.

B. Fair Housing Service Providers

The following recommendations were directed at Ventura County’s fair housing service providers in the 2000 AI:

1. Fair Housing Services

Fair housing related services are provided to all Ventura County residents by the Housing Rights Center (HRC).

Previous Impediment: HRC provided a total of 175 clients from the County with general housing and discrimination services in 2003. This represented a 17-percent increase from 2002. HRC continues to do outreach which is reflected in the increase in clients served; however, the number is still relatively low for a County.

Recommendation: Continue to increase outreach and education methods in order to increase awareness of fair housing laws, issues, and resources.

Efforts: HRC currently uses newspapers, radio, brochures to disseminate the information. Internet websites are also being widely used.

Previous Impediment: Given its relatively small size in terms of population, Camarillo constituted a high proportion of the discrimination cases and landlord/tenant issues in the County. This is reflective of Camarillo’s proactive code enforcement and ongoing outreach efforts to let residents know their rights and offer referrals to the HRC. Rates of hate crimes in the cities of Ojai and Ventura are also more than double the countywide average.

Recommendation: Increase landlord/tenant education, outreach, and services in the cities of Camarillo, Ventura, and Ojai.

Efforts: HRC distributed fair housing brochures throughout the Cities of Camarillo, Ventura and Ojai to increase fair housing education.

Previous Impediment: Approximately 27 percent of 254 survey respondents felt they were discriminated against. Of these 68 respondents, 79 percent said that the landlord or property manager had discriminated against them and 12 percent indicated a real estate agent discriminated against them.

Recommendation: Provide outreach and education to landlords, property managers, and other housing professionals in order to increase awareness of fair housing laws, issues, and resources.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 210

Efforts: Five fair housing workshops were conducted in participating cities, two workshops for housing industry professionals, and one presentation for staff of an affordable housing provider. HRC also conducted a Fair Housing Accessibility Training for Ventura County housing industry professionals.

Recommendation: Work with jurisdictions to develop and distribute public education and information materials on tolerance, focusing on sexual orientation, race/ethnic relations, and religion.

Efforts: Fair Housing information brochures are available at all City Halls and the County Government Center. The recommendation to increase the effort was considered and the determination was made that current efforts are adequate.

2. Lending and Insurance Practices

Recommendation: Work with lenders to outreach to minority and low and moderate income communities. The fact that loan application rates for minorities, particularly Black applicants, are disproportionately low indicates that they may be unaware of home loan and mortgage insurance opportunities.

Efforts: During Fiscal Year 2008-09, 72 lending institutions were contacted with fair housing information materials.

Recommendation: Communicate to lending institutions regarding the need to improve counseling on loan application procedures and requirements. A large proportion of home purchase loan applications are withdrawn or closed due to incomplete information.

Efforts: During Fiscal Year 2008-09, HRC conducted a mailing to 72 lenders and lending institutions that service Ventura County residents. The mailing included a letter introducing HRC and its services and offered a free fair lending training. The mailing also included HRC’s agency brochure, homebuyers and fair housing literature and an excerpt from the HRC Fair Lending training manual.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 211

C. City of Oxnard

The following recommendations were directed at the City of Oxnard in its 2000-2005 AI:

Previous Impediment: The AI reported the strong performance of the Fair Housing Institute (FHI) in regalvanizing fair housing services in Oxnard from late 1996 through 1999. FHI achieved wide public recognition as a strong agency and a solid enforcement record. FHI had to close its doors, however, due to inadequate funding. Its funding problems were not limited to Oxnard, but it is nonetheless true that FHI was never able to provide the fair housing services it believed were needed in Oxnard without an external subsidy. Fair housing funding by the City is relatively small as a proportion of its CDBG funding—currently about one percent. Most jurisdictions that have good fair housing services spend at least two percent of their CDBG allocation on fair housing.

Recommendation: Oxnard should seek commitments from other neighboring cities and Ventura County that they will, collectively, work towards dedicating two percent of CDBG funds to fair housing.

Efforts: The City of Oxnard communicated this to neighboring entities with no success. Each jurisdiction decides what to spend on fair housing, and none approached the consultant’s recommendation of two percent. However, within a few years, most jurisdictions in Ventura County were contracting with the same fair housing service provider (the Housing Rights Center), and thus certain economies of scale came into play that the City believes has helped provide a level of service commensurate with the Oxnard population’s need for fair housing service and advocacy.

Previous Impediment: The City’s relatively new fair housing provider—the San Gabriel Valley Fair Housing Council (SGVFHC)—has many strength and is capable of providing excellent service. SGVFHC will soon be merging with at least one other organization to form the preeminent fair housing provider in Southern California.

Recommendation: The City of Oxnard must be proactive to ensure that the new provider develops services to the level that existed under FHI. To do this, it should consider a supplemental audit of the provider’s files; trainings by former FHI staff on various Oxnard-specific conditions and outreach methods; and careful monitoring of the provider’s enforcement efforts and general productivity.

Efforts: The SGVFHC merged with the Westside Fair Housing Council to become the Housing Rights Center (HRC). Once the HRC became Oxnard’s new service provider, the City has, on an annual basis, audited the Oxnard case files of HRC. Oxnard has ensured provision of regular seminars and training for Oxnard residents, housing providers, and Housing Authority staff. The City has continually monitored HRC’s work product and service delivery.

Previous Impediment: The Asian community within Oxnard is one ethnic group which has become more segregated over the past decade—largely because of both economic and discriminatory barriers affecting the City’s Filipino population.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 212

Recommendation: The City’s fair housing provider should undertake special outreach efforts aimed at this community to better understand possible fair housing needs.

Efforts: In 2004-2005, the HRC met with the local Filipino-American Council (an umbrella group representing over 20 Fil-Am organizations in Ventura County) to establish a relationship and outreach (particularly to Filipino housing providers) on fair housing rights and responsibilities.

Previous Impediment: In general, the performance of lenders servicing Oxnard is good. Loans are available, and approval rates—though lower for Black and Hispanic applicants— are relatively similar among many lenders. However, several lenders with large disparities in approval rates for majority versus minority applicants have been identified.

Recommendation: The City’s fair housing provider should conduct seminars with the lending community, making special efforts to involve these lenders, to familiarize them with this study’s findings and discuss ways to improve performance. The City should also consider enforcement campaigns directed at particular lenders with poor performance. This need not involve a lawsuit; the Community Reinvestment Act “challenge” process provides an inexpensive but often very effective means for local governments and non-profits to pressure banks to implement reforms.

Efforts: The HRC has consistently reached out to the lending community and invited “local” lenders to training seminars, with little success. The region’s major lenders are not “local” at all, but rather are local representatives of national financial institutions (i.e., Countrywide, Citimortgage). On the advice of the City Attorney, Oxnard did not undertake any “enforcement campaign directed at particular lenders with ‘poor performance.’” The City’s position is that while that may be a good idea in theory, serious issues of jurisdiction and/or standing, federal and/or state pre-emption issues, and the difficulty of establishing any basis for defining what is “poor” performance and how to prove any violation of fair housing laws, place the likelihood of success of such an approach in great doubt, at best.

Previous Impediment: The City’s zoning and land use policies are good.

Recommendation: Existing staff should review Chapter 5 of the City of Oxnard 2000-2005 AI to help ensure familiarity with current requirements. The building code compliance process should incorporate an auditing process for new construction aimed at determining whether new buildings comply with federal fair housing laws. Ann Marcourt of Project Sentinel in Santa Clara County has developed an excellent audit process which can be adapted to this purpose.

Efforts: The City encouraged staff to review Chapter 5 of the 2000-2005 AI to help ensure familiarity with current zoning and land use requirements. The City also incorporated an auditing process into its building code compliance process.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 213

Previous Impediment: A majority of Oxnard’s residents live in single-family homes, but fair housing enforcement efforts currently focus almost entirely on the rental market.

Recommendation: The City’s provider has substantial experience in doing enforcement in the “sales” market, and the City should take advantage of this expertise and broaden the provider’s mission in Oxnard.

Efforts: The City’s agreement with HRC covers discrimination cases in all aspects of housing, including sales and lending, and when cases have arisen alleging discriminatory acts in the sales market, HRC has investigated and processed such cases.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 7: Progress Since 2005 May 2010 Page 214

Chapter 8 - Impediments and Recommendations

The previous chapters evaluate the conditions in the public and private market that may impede fair housing choice. This chapter builds upon the previous analysis, summarizes conclusions and presents a list of recommendations to help address the impediments. When identifying recommendations, this AI focuses on actions that are directly related to fair housing issues and can be implemented within the resources and authority of the participating jurisdictions. Existing State, local, and federal requirements, such as Affirmative Marketing Plans, Relocation Plans, deconcentration of Section 8 and public housing, are not re-stated in this AI. General recommendations, such as supporting the efforts of other agencies or enhancing affordability, are also not included.

A. Continued Impediments and Recommendations from Previous AIs

The following is a list of impediments and key recommendations carried over from previous AI documents.

1. General

Impediment A-1: Housing discrimination persists throughout the County, which is supported by general literature, statistical data, and cases filed with HUD and DFEH. Specifically, discriminatory practices based on race, disability, national origin, and familial status were among the top categories. These trends have persisted, and fair housing service providers have commented that discrimination based on disability has increased in recent years.

Recommendation A-1: The County should conduct comprehensive and countywide random testing on a regular basis to identify issues, trends, and problem properties and expand testing to cover other protected classes, especially those with emerging trends of suspected discriminatory practices. The County should also support stronger and more persistent enforcement activity by fair housing service providers. Lastly, the County should expand education and outreach efforts, with specific efforts outreaching to small rental properties where the owners/managers may not be members of the Apartments Association.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 215

2. Fair Housing Services

Impediment A-2: Only the jurisdictions of Camarillo, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, and the County of Ventura have a link to the Housing Rights Center (HRC) prominently displayed on their websites. Also, only the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Ventura, and the County of Ventura display fair housing information on their public counters.

Recommendation A-2: The cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, and Ventura should provide links to fair housing and other housing resources with current information on their websites. The cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, and Santa Paula should also prominently display fair housing information on their public counters.

Jurisdictions should consider collaborating with other nonprofit organizations to produce/distribute videos and other materials to enhance awareness of fair housing issues and services available.

Impediment A-3: Testing and audits are included in the contracts with the Housing Rights Center and are provided as necessary. Regular testing and audits are not conducted.

Recommendation A-3: Entitlement jurisdictions should consider increasing the budget for and scope of work of their fair housing service provider to include regular testing and audits. When testing are done only on a complaint-basis, issues may not be identifiable as only a small portion of those experiencing fair housing actually report their issues, and therefore complaint-based testing would likely under-represent the extent of housing discrimination. Testing can also be performed to identify emerging trends and target geographic areas.

Impediment A-4: Overall the incidence of hate crimes in Ventura County has declined by about 40 percent since 2005. The cities of Oxnard and Ventura reported slightly fewer hate crimes per 1,000 people than the cities of Camarillo, Thousand Oaks and Moorpark.

Recommendation A-4: All jurisdictions should continue their efforts at developing and distributing public education and information materials on tolerance, focusing on sexual orientation, race/ethnic relations, and religion.

Impediment A-5:28 A majority of Ventura County’s residents live in single-family homes, but fair housing enforcement efforts currently focus almost entirely on the rental market.

Recommendation A-5: The Housing Rights Center has substantial experience in doing enforcement in the “sales” market, and the County should take advantage of this expertise and broaden the provider’s mission in Ventura County.

28 This is an impediment identified in the 2000-2005 AI for the City of Oxnard. However, this condition applies to most jurisdictions in the County. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 216

3. Public Policies and Programs Affecting Housing Development

Impediment A-6: Ventura County has a sizable stock of affordable housing. This housing stock includes all public housing and multi-family rental units assisted under federal, state, and local programs, including HUD, state/local bond programs, density bonus and Ventura County redevelopment programs. Affordable projects include both new construction, as well as rehabilitation projects with affordability covenants. A total of 7,731 affordable housing units are located within the County. While housing affordability is not a fair housing concern per se, providing opportunities for a variety of housing choice can help lessen the likelihood of housing discrimination by increasing the supply.

Recommendation A-6: All jurisdictions should continue to encourage the development of affordable housing through: (1) development fee waivers/reductions, (2) streamlined permit processing, (3) flexibility in applying design and development standards, (4) achievable density bonuses, (5) other general plan, administrative, and zoning efforts, and/or (6) public-private partnerships with developers of affordable housing.

Impediment A-7: Three jurisdictions—Fillmore, Moorpark, and Ojai—indicated that no sensitivity training is provided to their staff.

Recommendation A-7: The cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, and Ojai should begin providing sensitivity training to staff that interfaces with the public to ensure that staff understand fair housing laws and are sensitive to proper language and behavior when dealing with groups with special needs. The remaining jurisdictions should maintain their sensitivity training efforts.

Impediment A-8: Tenure in the housing industry typically refers to the occupancy of a housing unit – whether the unit is owner occupied or occupied rental unit. Ventura County showed a higher proportion of owner-occupied housing (67.6 percent) than renter-occupied housing (32.4 percent). Most cities in the County had more owner-occupied housing units than renter-occupied units. Outliers include Thousand Oaks, where home ownership overwhelmingly predominated (97.3 percent) and Port Hueneme, where just under one-half of the housing stock was owner-occupied. In addition to Thousand Oaks, the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, and Simi Valley had particularly high proportions of owner- households compared to other communities in the County.

A substantial income disparity also exists between owner- and renter-households. Lower- income households in the County are more likely to be renter-households than owner- households. In general, housing discrimination issues are more prevalent in the rental housing market since renters are more likely to be subject to conditions in the housing market that are beyond their control.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 217

Recommendation A-8: Homeownership is particularly important as a vehicle for providing decent housing for working families. In cooperation with lending institutions, local associations of realtors and fair housing providers, jurisdictions should provide outreach to inform lower income households of special local, state, and federal homebuyer assistance programs.

Impediment A-9: In a tight housing market, seniors, particularly those with disabilities, often face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations or face targeted evictions. Seniors represent 10 percent of the County’s total population. The jurisdictions with the largest proportion of seniors are Ojai (17.9 percent) and Camarillo (17.0 percent). Overall, elderly households may be less able to make improvements to their housing, deal with a challenging situation (such as confronting the landlords or managers), or to find affordable housing due to limited income and disabilities. Seniors are very vulnerable to housing discrimination.

Large households are defined as those with five or more members. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is often limited. Due to the limited availability of affordable housing, many small households double-up to save on housing costs and tend to opt for renting. The 2000 Census documented 27,975 persons in 11,162 "subfamilies" in Ventura County, indicating a large number of the County's households contained more than one family.29

Of the County’s large households, 38 percent were renters in 2000. Slightly less than one- half of these large renter-households (43 percent) were lower income. The CHAS Databook reports that 78 percent of the County’s large renter-households were suffering from one or more housing problems, including housing overpayment, overcrowding and/or substandard housing conditions. Finding affordable housing of adequate size may be a challenging task for many households, particularly lower and moderate renter-households, however, large households also often face added discrimination in the housing market. Landlords may discriminate against large families for fear of excessive wear and tear or liability issues related to children.

29 A subfamily is a married couple with or without children, or a single-parent with one or more never-married children under the age of 18, living with and related to the householder but not including the householder or the householder’s spouse. When grown children move back to the parental home with their children or spouse, they are considered a subfamily. The number of subfamilies is not included in the count of families, since subfamily members are counted as part of the householder's family. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 218

Recommendation A-9: Jurisdictions should continue their efforts to expand the variety of available housing types and sizes. In addition, to persons with disabilities, senior households can also benefit from a wider range of housing options. To allow seniors to age in place, small one-story homes, townhomes or condominiums, or senior rentals may be needed.

Jurisdictions should also consider modifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners.

Impediment A-10: Concentrations of licensed residential care facilities exist in Camarillo, Ojai, and Ventura. However, several communities, including Santa Paula and unincorporated Ventura County, have limited community care options for persons with special needs.

Recommendation A-10: The shortage of supported housing for persons with disabilities, such as community residential care facilities, is a community concern. Jurisdictions should explore ways to develop supported housing through non-profit housing developers and service providers. Local jurisdictions should also review their zoning ordinances and permit processing to ensure that they are not inhibiting the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

Jurisdictions should also consider modifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners.

Impediment A-11: Currently, the cities of Port Hueneme and Simi Valley and the County of Ventura are the only jurisdictions with a formal Reasonable Accommodations procedure. A reasonable accommodation ordinance of a local jurisdiction should cover the relaxation of rules and regulations in land use, zoning, and other administrative policies (for example, removing the variance requirement if handicap ramp would violate the local zoning standards on encroachment or setbacks.) Such flexibility in the application of rules and policies is separate and distinct from the ADA accessibility requirements.

The cities of Camarillo, Fillmore, Ojai, and Thousand Oaks have all promised to adopt formal Reasonable Accommodations procedures in their 2008-2014 Housing Elements.

Recommendation A-11: The cities of Moorpark, Oxnard, Santa Paula and Ventura should adopt formal Reasonable Accommodations policies and procedures.

Impediment A-12: Physical disability is the greatest cited basis for discrimination, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH). Mentally ill tenants also face the barrier of stigmatization and biases from landlords and managers. Currently, only the jurisdictions of Simi Valley and Ventura actively promote universal design principles in new housing developments. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 219

Recommendation A-12: The jurisdictions of Camarillo, Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks and the County of Ventura should consider promoting universal design principles in new housing developments.

Jurisdictions should also consider modifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners.

4. Lending and Insurance Practices

Impediment A-13: Conventional home purchase loans were a major loan source for Ventura County households. Substantially fewer households in the County applied for a government- backed loan—2,777 applications for government-backed loans compared to the 12,690 applications for conventional home purchase loans. Applicants also had higher approval rates for conventional home purchase loans than for government-backed purchase loans, regardless of income level.

The HMDA data available does not provide information on which loans were actually prime or sub-prime mortgage loan applications among conventional home purchase loans. It is likely that a number of households that in the past would have opted for government-backed loans were able to receive conventional loans through the sub-prime market. Sub-prime lenders generally have interest rates that are higher than those in the prime market. While sub-prime lending cannot in and of itself be equated with predatory lending, studies have shown a high incidence of predatory lending in the sub-prime market. Unlike the prime lending market, overly high approval rates in the sub-prime market is a potential cause for concern when the target clients are considered high-risk.

Approval rates differed significantly among the top lenders in Ventura County, from two percent (Beneficial Company, LLC) to 75 percent (Flagstar Bank). However, two of the three top lenders in Ventura County for 2008 (Countrywide and Wells Fargo) had approval rates that were higher than the average approval rate for the County as a whole (51 percent and 64 percent, respectively). Wells Fargo also had a high proportion of loans that were withdrawn by the applicant or closed for incompleteness (21 percent).

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 220

Recommendation A-13: Participating jurisdictions should review the lending patterns of all financial institutions that provide financial services to the jurisdictions and participate in jurisdiction-sponsored loan programs. Special attention should be directed to home purchase lending in lower income and minority concentration areas.

In selecting financial institutions to participate in housing programs, the participating jurisdictions should consider the lender’s performance history with regard to home loans in low/moderate income areas and minority concentration areas, as well as the lender’s activity in other Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) activities such as participation in affordable rental housing projects under programs such as bond financing, tax credit, or the Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Program.

Impediment A-14: HMDA data reveals that the racial/ethnic makeup of applicants for conventional home loans was not necessarily reflective of the racial/ethnic demographics of Ventura County. In 2000, 57 percent of Ventura residents were Non-Hispanic White. However, in 2003, Non-Hispanic Whites made up just 47 percent of all applicants, and in 2008, Non-Hispanic Whites were overrepresented in the applicant pool at 64 percent. By comparison, Hispanics made up 33 percent of Ventura County residents in 2000; yet, they have been consistently underrepresented in the applicant pool for conventional home loans (just 21 percent in 2003 and 25 percent in 2008). Similarly, Blacks comprised approximately two percent of Ventura County residents in 2000, but have made up less than one percent of the applicant pool for conventional home loans in both 2003 and 2008.

Also, a difference in the approval rates for home purchase loans for Non-Hispanic White and non-White households existed in 2008 (Table 52). Among low income households (those earning 80 percent of AMI or less), Non-Hispanic Whites had the highest approval rates (67 percent) while Blacks had the lowest (36 percent). Blacks in the high income category (those earning 120 percent of AMI or more) also had noticeably lower approval rates (54 percent) than Non-Hispanic Whites (67 percent) and Asians (64 percent). Since it is assumed that most households in this income category are financially capable of purchasing homes, the discrepancy in home loan approval rates indicates a reason for concern. In the City of Oxnard, several lenders with large disparities in approval rates for majority versus minority applicants have also been identified.

Recommendation A-14: The fair housing service contractor(s) should monitor lending activities in the County and identify potential issues regarding redlining, credit steering, predatory lending, and fraudulent activities.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 221

5. Demographics

Impediment A-15: Residential segregation refers to the degree to which groups live separately from one another. The term segregation historically has been linked to the forceful separation of racial groups. However, as more minorities move into suburban areas and outside of traditional urban enclaves, segregation is becoming increasingly self imposed. The dissimilarity index, presented in Table 13 (page 26) represents the percentage of one group that would have to move into a new neighborhood to achieve perfect integration with another group. An index score can range in value from 0, indicating complete integration, to 100, indicating complete segregation. In Ventura County, the dissimilarity indices reveal that the region is a moderately segregated community in which people of different races and ethnic backgrounds tended to live in relative isolation to one another. The highest level of segregation exists between Hispanics and Non-Hispanic Whites (58.1 percent) and the lowest between Asians and Non-Hispanic Whites (34 percent).

Recommendation A-15: Jurisdictions should continue to offer a range of housing options to allow the greatest residential mobility among its residents. Continued and expanded fair housing services would promote equal housing opportunities and help reduce residential segregation. No current Census data exists to elaborate on the state of residential segregation in Ventura County, however, once 2010 Census data is released, it is recommended that jurisdictions reevaluate data concerning residential segregation patterns.

B. New Impediments and Recommendations

The following is a list of new impediments and key recommendations.

1. Demographics

Impediment B-1: According to the 2000 Census, the racial/ethnic composition of Ventura County's population was: 57 percent White (non-Hispanic); 33 percent Hispanic; five percent Asian & Pacific Islander; two percent Black; two percent indicating two or more races; and less than one percent other ethnic groups (see Table 10). There is also a concentration of Mixteco population in the County based on comments from residents, staff, and fair housing service providers. However, no census data is available on this group.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 222

Linguistic isolation can be an issue in the County’s Hispanic and Asian populations. In 2000, approximately 28 percent of all Ventura County residents speak languages other than English at home, and only 15 percent speak English “less than very well.” Linguistic isolation is slightly more prevalent among the Hispanic population. Approximately 27 percent of Ventura County residents speak Spanish at home and approximately 14 percent of these persons speak English “less than very well.” In comparison, four percent of Ventura County residents speak Asian languages at home and less than two percent of these persons speak English “less than very well.” Language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing of choice. Participants of the fair housing workshops indicated that the Mixteco population has problems accessing services and information due to language barriers.

Recommendation B-1: Currently, all jurisdictions have bi-lingual capabilities to serve Spanish speaking residents. All jurisdictions should continue bi-lingual efforts and consider expanding the number of languages offered.

Impediment B-2: Ventura County has one of the highest median incomes in the State and the nation. The majority of households in Ventura County earned middle and upper incomes in 1999. However, 21 percent of the households are considered lower and moderate income, earning less than 80 percent of the County Area Median Income (AMI). Among the household types, elderly and other households had the highest proportion of extremely low income households, at 18 percent and 12 percent, respectively.

At least 35 percent of renter-households in every jurisdiction in Ventura County had a housing cost burden (Table 35 on page 58). Rates of renter cost burden were highest in the cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, and Santa Paula. While housing affordability per se is not a fair housing issue, when minority, senior, and disabled households are disproportionately impacted by housing cost burden issues, housing affordability has a fair housing implication.

Also, housing affordability tends to disproportionately affect minority populations. In Ventura County, Hispanic (56 percent) and Black (42 percent) households had a considerably higher percentage of lower- and moderate-income households than the County as a whole (36 percent). Non-Hispanic Whites (30 percent) had the lowest proportion of households in the lower- and moderate-income categories. In this regard, housing affordability is a fair housing concern.

Recommendation B-2: Jurisdictions should continue to expand its housing stock to accommodate a range of housing options and income levels.

2. Housing Market Conditions

Impediment B-3: As shown in Table 26 (on page 50), nearly 68 percent of Ventura County housing stock was over 30 years of age in 2000. The cities of Ojai, Santa Paula, and the City of Ventura have the largest proportions of housing units potentially in need of rehabilitation. Home rehabilitation can be an obstacle for senior homeowners with fixed incomes and mobility issues.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 223

Recommendation B-3: All jurisdictions should continue operating their housing rehabilitation programs. The cities of Ojai, Santa Paula and Ventura should increase their efforts to promote their housing rehabilitation programs.

Jurisdictions should also consider modifying their housing rehabilitation programs to make financial assistance for accessibility improvements available for renters, as well as homeowners.

3. Public Policies

Impediment B-4: A Housing Element found by HCD to be in compliance with state law is presumed to have adequately addressed its policy constraints. According to HCD, of the 11 participating jurisdictions (including the County), only two jurisdictions (Camarillo and Port Hueneme) have current Housing Elements that comply with State law at the writing of this AI.

Recommendation B-4: The remaining jurisdictions should pursue State certification of the Housing Element.

Impediment B-5: California court cases have ruled that a definition of “family” that: 1) limits the number of persons in a family; 2) specifies how members of the family are related (i.e. by blood, marriage or adoption, etc.), or 3) a group of not more than a certain number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit, is invalid. A Zoning Ordinance also cannot regulate residency by discrimination between biologically related and unrelated persons. Furthermore, a zoning provision cannot regulate or enforce the number of persons constituting a family. Currently, Zoning Ordinances for Camarillo, Port Hueneme, and Thousand Oaks include definitions of “family” that constitutes a potential impediment to fair housing choice.

Recommendation B-5: The cities of Camarillo, Port Hueneme and Thousand Oaks should consider amending the definition of “family” in their Zoning Ordinances.

Impediment B-6: California Government Code Section 65915 provides that a local government shall grant a density bonus of at least 20 percent (five percent for condominiums) and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive(s), to a developer of affordable housing. The statute includes a sliding scale of bonuses depending on the amount of affordable units developed. As of August 2009, only Zoning Ordinances for Moorpark, Oxnard, Santa Paula and Thousand Oaks specified density bonus provisions in accordance with State law.

Recommendation B-6: The jurisdictions of Camarillo, Fillmore, Ojai, Port Hueneme, Simi Valley, Ventura and the County of Ventura should consider amending their density bonus provisions to comply with State law.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 224

Impediment B-7: Communities that require an especially high number of parking spaces per dwelling unit can negatively impact the feasibility of producing affordable housing by reducing the achievable number of dwelling units per acre, increasing development costs, and thus restrict the range of housing types constructed in a community. Moorpark has parking standards for multiple-family uses that make little or no distinction between parking required for smaller units (one or two bedrooms) and larger units (three or more bedrooms). Because smaller multiple-family units are often the most suitable type of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, requiring the same number parking spaces as larger multiple-family units can be a constraint on the construction of units intended to serve these populations.

Recommendation B-7: The City of Moorpark should consider amending their multi- family parking requirements to differentiate between smaller units, of one or two bedrooms, and larger units, of three or more bedrooms.

Impediment B-8: Zoning Ordinances should also avoid “pyramid or cumulative zoning” (e.g. permitting lower-density single-family uses in zones intended for higher density multi- family uses). Pyramid or cumulative zoning schemes could limit the amount of lower-cost multiple-family residential uses in a community and be a potential impediment to fair housing choice. Most jurisdictions in Ventura County have some form of pyramid zoning and permitting single family residential uses in multiple-family zones is the most prevalent example. Fillmore and Simi Valley are the only jurisdictions that do not have a form of pyramid zoning.

Recommendation B-8: The jurisdictions of Camarillo, Moorpark, Ojai, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, Thousand Oaks, Ventura and the County of Ventura should consider amending their Zoning Ordinances to avoid “pyramid or cumulative zoning.”

Impediment B-9: California law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under which second units are permitted. Second units cannot be prohibited in residential zones unless a local jurisdiction establishes that such action may limit housing opportunities in the region and finds that second units would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare in residential zones. The State’s second unit law was amended in September 2002 to require use of a ministerial, rather than discretionary, process for reviewing and approving second units.

Most jurisdictions in the County have amended their Zoning Ordinances and currently permit second unit development via a variety of review processes such as a zoning clearance or an administrative permit. However, Fillmore and Moorpark require approval of a discretionary permit and Oxnard does not provide for second dwelling units within the coastal zone. Because second dwelling units can be an important source of suitable and affordable type of housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, overly restrictive or conflicting provisions for these units can be considered an impediment to fair housing choice.

Recommendation B-9: Fillmore and Moorpark should remove the discretionary permit approvals required for second units. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 225

Impediment B-10: State law requires local governments to permit manufactured or mobile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation in all single-family residential zoning districts (Section 65852.3 of the California Government Code). Currently, the Thousand Oaks Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly accommodate manufactured or mobile homes in single-family residential zoning districts consistent with State law. Because these units can be a source of affordable housing for lower-income individuals, including seniors and the disabled, overly restrictive regulation of these uses can indirectly impede fair housing choice.

Recommendation B-10: The City of Thousand Oaks should consider making explicit provisions in its Zoning Ordinance for manufactured homes within single-family residential zoning districts.

Impediment B-11: A number of jurisdictions are not compliant with the Lanterman Act or do not include provisions for residential care facilities serving more than seven persons. Camarillo and Thousand Oaks do not have provisions for residential care facilities in their Zoning Ordinances. Ojai and Santa Paula do not explicitly permit licensed residential care facilities serving six or fewer persons by right in family residential zones. While Oxnard does comply with the Lanterman Act, the City limits the number of individuals that can occupy larger residential care facilities. Furthermore, most Zoning Ordinances do not address the non-licensed residential care facilities.

Recommendation B-11: The jurisdictions of Camarillo, Ojai, Oxnard, Santa Paula and Thousand Oaks should consider amending their Zoning Ordinances to comply with the Lanterman Act. All jurisdictions should make provisions for non-licensed residential care facilities (see discussions under transitional and supportive housing).

Impediment B-12: Recent changes in State law (SB 2) require that local jurisdictions make provisions in the zoning code to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. Local jurisdictions may, however, establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters. Failure to explicitly permit or conditionally permit emergency shelters is prevalent among jurisdictions in Ventura County. So far, only the City of Simi Valley has addressed the SB 2 requirement.

Recommendation B-12: All jurisdictions, with the exception of Simi Valley, should amend their Zoning Ordinances to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zone to comply with State law.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 226

Impediment B-13: State law (AB 2634 and SB 2) requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. Pursuant to SB 2, transitional and supportive housing constitutes a residential use and therefore local governments cannot treat it differently from other types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit when other residential uses of similar function do not require a use permit). As of August 2009, no jurisdiction in Ventura County included provisions for supportive housing in their Zoning Ordinance. Transitional housing is conditionally permitted in some districts in Camarillo, Ojai, Santa Paula, and Simi Valley.

Recommendation B-13: All jurisdictions should amend their Zoning Ordinances to include explicit provisions for supportive housing. The cities of Fillmore, Moorpark, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Ventura and the County of Ventura should consider amending their Zoning Ordinances to include provisions for transitional housing.

Impediment B-14: AB 2634 also mandates that local jurisdictions address the provision of housing options for extremely low income households, including Single Room Occupancy units (SRO). Currently, only the cities of Camarillo, Oxnard, and Santa Paula provide for SRO units. SRO units are one of the most traditional forms of affordable private housing for lower income individuals, including seniors and persons with disabilities. These protected classes are required to have suitable housing options, which SRO’s provide.

Recommendation B-14: All jurisdictions, with the exception of Camarillo, Oxnard, and Santa Paula, should consider amending their Zoning Ordinances to include provisions for SROs.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Chapter 8: Impediments and Recommendations May 2010 Page 227

Appendix A: Public Outreach

The County of Ventura 2010-2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice has been developed through a collaborative process involving participation by residents, service providers, and the staff of participating jurisdictions. In addition to analysis of available data sources and review of existing reports and fair housing practices, the County and its 10 cities sought public input on fair housing issues through several avenues:

Community Meetings

The County of Ventura and its 10 cities conducted a series of community meetings to gather information on fair housing concerns. The exact locations and dates of the meetings were as follows:

Focus Area Location Date Hall of Administration Lower Plaza Assembly Room West County Thursday, November 5, 2009 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Oxnard Public Library Oxnard 251 South "A" Street Monday, November 9, 2009 Oxnard, CA 93030 Council Chamber East County 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Thursday, November 12, 2009 Simi Valley, CA 93063

All three meetings were open to everyone in the County. Residents, service providers, housing professionals, and community stakeholders were encouraged to attend any one of the three meetings that was convenient to them.

Participants were introduced to the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice process and intent and asked to discuss fair housing concerns. To encourage attendance and participation, the meetings were publicized through the following methods:

A total of 29 residents and representatives of service provider agencies attended these meetings. In general, community workshops on fair housing issues receive little attention from the public. Often, people participate in such workshops only if they are directly impacted by fair housing issues. Agencies attending the community meeting include:

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-1

• Housing Rights Center • Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation • California Rural Legal Assistance • Conejo Valley Association of Realtors • Forsyth & Rizzie Realtors • Prudential California Realty

Service Provider Interviews

In addition to those agencies that attended the community meetings, the following service providers/entities were interviewed:

Many Mansions 1459 East Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-6222

Contact: Rick A. Schroeder, President Phone: (805) 496-4948 ext. 227

Background: Since 1979, Many Mansions provides well-managed, service-enriched, affordable housing to low-income residents of Ventura County and its surrounding communities. By providing decent housing and life-enriching services to those most in need, we aim to break the cycle of poverty and remove the barriers that prevent members of our community from having a basic need met—a roof over their head.

Service Provided: Many Mansions is an affordable housing developer; the organization owns and manages over 400 units of affordable housing, primarily in Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks. The organization has no established preferences, however, Many Mansions works primarily with the homeless and developmentally disabled. The organization also provides on-site services and programs that include job training, a food pantry, summer camps, counseling, case management, homework literacy, a teen club, and much more. Services are available to all tenants.

Clients Served: Serves approximately 1,000 adults and 200 children.

Comments:

• Tenants, especially those who are developmentally disabled, have complained about experiencing discrimination in former housing situations. Many believe that their disability led landlords and property owners to turn down their rental applications, and in some cases, evict them. For example, one tenant, who exhibited some autism-related behaviors, was evicted for being “weird.” • Residents with Section 8 have difficulty finding landlords who will accept their vouchers.

Suggestions for the County:

Most instances of discrimination are not intentional. The County should sponsor efforts (e.g. seminars and other outreach) to educate for-profit landlords and property owners about what they are legally obligated to do, in terms of fair housing.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-2

California Rural Legal Assistance P.O. Box 1561 Oxnard, CA 93032

Contact: Ron Perry, Directing Attorney Phone: (805) 486-1068

Background: California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) was founded in 1966 as a nonprofit legal services program. Today, CRLA is a state-wide, public interest law firm that represents low wage workers and other low-income people with civil kinds of legal problems.

Service Provided: Through federal funding directed at law firms that address fair hosuing issues, CRLA represents clients who have cases where it appears that discrimination has occurred through a variety of methods including refusal to rent, termination of existing tenants, and/or denied admission to public housing or Section 8 programs and services. They also address unfair or outdated policies for public housing and Section 8 procedures and rules.

Clients Served: Serves approximately 40,000 persons state-wide.

Comments:

• It is becoming more difficult for the disabled, especially those with cognitive and intellectual disabilities, to obtain appropriate housing. Therefore, many do not receive proper housing to match their needs and are consequently terminated from their program or the housing since the housing is inadequate and not meant for them. • There has been an increase in discrimination of tenants based on family size. In the past, two adults and two children would be offered a two- or three-bedroom unit in public housing. However, if a person leaves the household due to growing up or any other reason, then the residents are considered “over housed” and must acquire another roommate or face termination from the public housing program. • Another segment of the population that is being greatly discriminated against are those who were at one time incarcerated. There are many onerous rules, such as no public housing or voucher assistance until an individual is off parole or probation. Rules like this encourage individuals to reoffend since there is a correlation between committing crime and not having stable housing. In addition, this has a disparate impact on minorities because they are more likely to be arrested. • Statements of a discriminatory nature by Public Housing Authority (PHA) staff to and about recipients of housing subsidies, and policies which have a discriminatory impact on protected classes, are not limited to the Area Housing Authority and occur in all of the region’s Housing Authorities. Based on the frequent complaints of clients seeking CRLA’s services, and the experience of CRLA staff, there appears to be many staff at Ventura County PHAs who view recipients of assistance as a burden, as “ungrateful,” and as potentially (or actually) criminal. This attitude seems more pervasive in Section 8 programs than in Public Housing programs. • The Executive Director and staff at the Oxnard Housing Authority have entered into a dialogue with CRLA in an effort to improve relations between the two agencies and provide better services to their respective client communities. It should also be noted that the Public Housing side of the Oxnard Housing Authority has distinguished itself among PHAs in the area as a responsive and effective provider of subsidized housing to the most vulnerable residents of the community.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-3

Suggestions for the County:

• The Area Housing Authority needs to look at and critically examine their termination and admission policies and procedures from a fair housing perspective. These policies have led to discrimination practices against minorities and/or persons with mental disabilities. • The County needs to establish a better transition program for those with developmental disabilities or the mentally ill because they are currently released into the community from mental facilities and do not receive adequate follow through. • Provide more facilities for homeless. For instance, one client in a wheelchair is unable to access the Winter Shelter because the location does not meet ADA standards of compliance. • The Housing Authority of the City of Ventura needs to be located in a more centralized area with greater access because right now it is virtually inaccessible to the people who need its services the most. It either needs satellite facilities or needs to relocate out of Saticoy. • Many PHA staff members throughout the County appear to lack training in Fair Housing principles, particularly in the areas of language access and the rights of persons with disabilities, and the PHA’s legal obligation to “affirmatively further Fair Housing.”

Barbara Macri-Ortiz Oxnard, CA 93031

Contact: Barbara Macri-Ortiz Phone: (805) 486-9665

Background: Barbara Macri-Ortiz has been practicing law for over 20 years and currently owns and manages her own law firm, which assists clients who are facing discriminatory and fair housing issues.

Service Provided: Macri-Ortiz represents clients who have been discriminated against. She also addresses unfair or outdated policies and assists with assuring future developments properly serve the community.

Comments:

• Most discrimination occurs with resident managers who are uncomfortable with certain races or ethnicities, or at least more comfortable with a certain race or ethnicity. Most discrimination seen by her law practice occurs because of race and ethnicity. • Blacks are discriminated against more than Hispanics. Property managers are often Hispanic and they cater to other Spanish speaking individuals. • There is some discrimination based on disabilities and age but there are services and places for those who have been discriminated against. Folks that have mental barriers get into situations where their conduct is an issue with resident managers who are not willing to deal with it. The best way to help those with mental illness is have good case workers because these individuals are dependent on the management of their situation. • Most discrimination involves familial status. For instance, there are a couple of affordable housing projects that are built or being built for the disabled but do not allow children. So you cannot have a family live with an individual or the individual with children cannot live there. Macri-Ortiz sees discrimination against individuals with children as the biggest issue in the county.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-4

• Discrimination of large families and those with children is masked as overcrowding the appropriate unit. Typically, the appropriate ratio is two per bedroom plus one. Many times the people fit this requirement, but management is not supportive, mostly because of the children. • Owners do not care who is living in the residences, they just want the money.

Suggestions for the County:

• Education and public service announcements. We have a very intolerant tone in society so anything the County can do to offset that is important. County has to set the tone and provide leadership by being sensitive to all needs and all of the population. • Encourage looking for good tenants, that’s it. Individuals that pay rent and play by the rules, not confined by race and such. Leadership, public service announcements, and education help offset this, in addition to intertwining these issues with the business of the county. • Fair housing needs a message, legal responsibility, and moral responsibility. The County needs to promote these ideas and implement these ideas in day-to-day operations. Need to get the message to people who are not looking for it because they usually already have those ideas. • Provide training for landlords and resident managers. Focus on fair housing, then focus on those who have the power to enforce the law or violate the law. Go to the problem, get landlords and educate them about the law. • Public services announcements to the public and landlords to set the tone and bring issues to the forefront. Then, integrate these ideals into county practice. This provides the leadership.

Ventura County Behavioral Health Department (BHD) 1911 Williams Drive, Suite 200 Oxnard, CA 93036

Contact: Carolyn Briggs, Housing Director Phone: (805) 981-3300

Background: As an integrated component of the County Health Care system, BHD promotes resiliency, recovery, and hope for our clients and their families by providing accessible, culturally competent, age- appropriate, cost-effective, outcome driven, client and family-focused services to meet the mental health and substance abuse treatment needs of the Ventura County.

Service Provided: Programs that achieve this mission include alcohol and drug programs, cultural competence services, youth and family services, adult services, and crisis intervention and prevention. The types of services in these programs range from support groups to immediate medical care to education and training regarding mental health and substance abuse issues.

Comments:

• Most of the discrimination and fair housing violations witnessed today are sophisticated discrimination, which means finding loop holes and “savvy” way to not rent to someone. For instance, they focus on areas of a person’s life that are more difficult to manage with a mental disability such as having a poor credit score, previous incarceration, the fact that Social Security Income is there only money. Essentially, any event or situation that leads an individual to have a “checkered history.” Landlords and owners find other rationales to not rent to individuals with mental disabilities. Although they may be legitimate reasons, they are not the real reason for discrimination.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-5

• When referrals to other service providers and landlords or owners are from BHD, then an individual is more likely to be helped or considered for housing that is not specially constructed for the people for which BHD provides services.

Suggestions for the County:

• The County needs to assist other organizations in providing referrals for individuals to the Behavioral Health Services Department. They need more referrals and vouching in order to properly serve the community. • There is a lack of connection between the system(s) of service. The county should aid in coordinating the different services and organizations with referral brochures, programs, and such. • The County needs to provide more outreach and education to owners and landlords in Ventura County about fair housing issues. They need to focus on what is considered a disability and be sure to highlight all of the disabilities that are out there. • The County could help remove barriers to development of subsidized housing by simplifying the process so that it is more streamlined. Simplifying the process will hopefully encourage developers to build the assisted housing that is needed. • The County needs to allow and encourage more second units or shared housing.

Ventura County Rainbow Alliance P.O. Box 6844 Ventura, CA 93006

Contact: Jay Smith, Director Phone: (805) 653-5711

Background: Established in 1993 and registered with the State of California as a non-profit 501(c)(3), Ventura County Rainbow Alliance is a community-based organization providing services and programming designed for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community and those affected by HIV/AIDS. The agency is staffed by a network of volunteers and community partners. Ventura County Rainbow Alliance is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors that meets monthly to set policy and strategy.

Service Provided: As part of their mission, the Alliance provides mental health services as well as individual and group counseling on a variety of issues such as addiction, depression, relationships, domestic violence, substance abuse, and “coming out” support. They also offer the Youth Empowerment Program (YEP), which is a safe, warm and welcoming space, free of drugs and alcohol. YEP is an activities-based program that provides support and empowerment for the LGBT community and questioning youth (LGBTQ) ages 13 to 23 and their allies to expand personal opportunities, promote equality, and encourage healthy lifestyles by providing enrichment activities.

The Alliance also provides a variety of services to the HIV/AIDS populations such as rapid testing, a clean needles program, a food pantry, some case management, and referral and advocacy.

Comments:

• The segments of the population, to which the Rainbow Alliance provides services, are discriminated against in trying to find apartments, trying to find loans, and any variety of housing processes.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-6

• Discrimination against the LGBT and HIV/AIDS populations has even reached a national level with a bill in the federal House of Representatives and Senate known as ENDA – Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Suggestions for the County:

• The County can best serve these segments of the population and the Rainbow Alliance by assisting them in acquiring funding and improving services, especially mental health services. • The organization, like many others, has lost a lot of its funding and resources with the current economy and the State’s budget situation.

Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County 167 Lambert Street Oxnard, CA 93036

Contact: Stacy R. Swanson, Executive Director Phone: (805) 485-6065

Background: Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry seeking to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from Ventura County and the world, making decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.

Service Provided: Habitat for Humanity works in partnership with people from all walks of life to build simple decent and affordable housing. The houses then are sold to low income families at no profit and with no interest charged. Volunteers provide the labor, and Habitat for Humanity of Ventura County raises funds from individuals, foundations, corporations, businesses, faith based organizations and grants to build the houses. Working alongside volunteers, partner Families themselves invest 500 hundred hours of labor, called 'sweat equity,' into building their home and the homes of others.

Comments:

• Affordable housing is needed for low/very-low/extremely low income households, especially any possibility of home ownership in those income categories

Suggestions for the County:

• Utilize funds available through NSP and the redevelopment agency to partner with non-profit builders to create housing for low/very-low/extremely low income households • Assist non-profit developers by waiving or significantly reducing permit and pre-development fees (currently as much as $50k per unit in Ventura County).

Food Share, Inc. 4156 South Bank Road Oxnard, CA 93036

Contact: Fran McNeill, Program Director Phone: (805) 983-7100

Background: FOOD Share is a food bank that houses and distributes millions of pounds of food per year to the hungry of Ventura County. The Agency operates a physical plant of roughly 36, 000 square feet of

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-7

warehouse space in addition to the support staff offices and administration. The food bank employs a core staff in key positions to receive, inventory, store and distribute food to disseminate via a partner and agency distribution method.

Service Provided: FOOD Share collects and receives food year-round and utilizes a distribution method that includes partners and agencies located throughout the county. Our network of partners provides the pantries, congregate meal sites, brown bag-USDA distributions and produce outreach efforts. Thirteen sites are able to distribute specialized purchased healthy snacks to children through their after-school programs. FOOD Share provides the necessary food to the 155 partners to feed the hungry in their local communities.

Comments:

• There is a lack of affordable housing in Ventura County • Waiting lists for subsidized housing are years long • There is a great need for additional transitional shelters in the region with longer stays

Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing Project (MICOP) “Poder Popular Program” P.O. Box 20543 Oxnard, CA 93034

Contact: Arcenio J. Lopez Number: 805-483-1166

Background: Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing Project (MICOP) was founded in 2001 to address the pressing concerns of Ventura County's most vulnerable and marginalized residents: indigenous farm workers from the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Speaking only the Mixteco language, Mixtecs are subject to discrimination and exploitation at work, in the marketplace, and in housing.

Service Provided: MICOP offers a range of programs to mentor, train, support and empower Ventura County's Mixtec population, including:

• Community organizing • Promotor/a training and mentoring • Spanish-Mixteco interpreter training • Linguistically accessible parenting classes • Cultural competency training and consulting • Cultural events including celebrations of Dia de los Ninos, Dia de los Muertos and Fiesta Navidena and much more

The focal point of MICOP's work is monthly community meetings designed to build a sense of community and self-sufficiency among Ventura County's Mixtec population, while helping Mixtecs access healthcare and educational and social services.

Comments: Mixtecos are one of the most overlooked populations in Ventura County. Mixtecos are the subject of discrimination and racism. The lack of equal opportunity is not reflected just in housing disparities, but also from other services. Specifically, the most common fair housing issues being seen in the Mixteco population are:

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-8

Discrimination: Mixtecos are subjected to discrimination by being threatened by the homeowners or landlords because they are used to living in crowded situations in order to be able to pay the rent. Even more, when they do not the have right documents to lease or rent an apartment they chose to rent small rooms that most of the time are overpriced and often the facilities are not up to code. However, if there is a landlord that will be willing to rent them an apartment, this would be for a higher rent. Once a landlord identifies that they are renting to a Mixteco they take advantage of them by asking them to leave the building right away (next day) without given them notice to find another place to live. They also are taken advantage of by the landlords not returning the deposits.

All people must have equal housing opportunities and equal application of the laws because they work here and are contributing to the taxes and economy of this county.

Suggestions for the County:

• Implementing housing policies that would give fair housing to the most needy population as they are farmworkers, and low income families regardless of their legal status.

People’s Self Help Housing Corporation (PSHHC) 3533 Empleo San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

Contact: Scott Smith Number: 805-781-3088

Background: PSHHC is a non-profit Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) that develops and operates affordable housing and self-sufficiency services on the central coast – San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. We have completed over 1,300 units of rental housing and 1,000 units of ownership housing. See website at www.pshhc.org.

Services Provided: The primary services provided by PSHHC include:

• Self-Help" home ownership • Rental housing development • Neighborhood revitalization • Property management • Supportive Housing Program; and • Youth Education Enhancement Program (YEEP)

Comments:

• Discrimination and fair housing issues are more prevalent through unscrupulous landlords that overcharge for rent, overcrowd tenants, fail to make needed health and safety repairs and fraudulently withhold security deposits.

Suggestions for County:

• Devote greater resources to affordable housing and supportive services.

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-9

Community Survey

As part of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, the County conducted a fair housing survey. The survey consisted of questions designed to gather information on a person’s experience with fair housing issues and perception of fair housing issues in his/her neighborhood. The survey was made available in English and Spanish and distributed via the following methods:

A total of 527 persons responded to the Fair Housing Survey. A summary of the findings of the survey is included in the text of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.

Public Comment Period

A 30‐day public review of the Draft Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) was provided from April 1 through April 30, 2010. An article inviting residents to comment on the AI ran in the Simi Valley Acorn on April 16, 2010. Two public comments were received for the Annual Plan/Consolidated Plan/Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. These comments, along with responses from the City of Simi Valley and the County of Ventura, are included in this Appendix:

Hi my name is Barbara Anne,

I would like to comment on fair housing in Simi as reported in the Simi Valley Acorn for April 16, 2010. In this economy I hear about lots of people losing their homes and jobs, yet the price of housing doesn't go down. Our rent is just as high and my husband works two jobs and doesn't even make enough to pay the rent on time or pay the bills up so we can get caught up. Yet we don't qualify for low income housing and we don't make enough to buy a home or fix out credit. We were denyed a chance to buy a low income home due to 70 points on his credit. Which really sucked cause we could of totally caught up on bills and stuff that is dragging our credit into the dumps. We pay $1600 a month in rent for two bedrooms in a apartment complex that we recently heard is very picky about tenants, though I don't know why since they have a lot of stuff that should've been repaired decades ago and some of it is starting to fall apart badly. We have tried to move into a cheaper place, but California has made it so hard that we once had to live in Palmdale and commute at 4am to get to work and school in Simi Valley. One issue that needs some fixing is the credit issues. It is so hard to rent a place in Simi Valley that so many have to leave the city they love which means places are left vacant and jobs can be lost and less people equal less income and less money for the city. I have lived here close to most of my life and have seen Simi change several times over the years. I brag about how wonderful Simi Valley is all the time. Making your credit perfect these days is nearly impossible. We don't have any credit card issues, just bills we couldn't pay due to just trying to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table. We probably could pay bills if we dumped health insurance, but then if one of us gets sick then we are screwed and also new health care issues pretty much demand everyone get health insurance. We have many homes left empty due to forclosures. Why not rent them out or rent to own them at a lower rate? Why is the low income so low when these days things are still high priced and they don't take into consideration; electricity, gas, water, trash, food, transportation, etc? Why aren't we renting out these empty buildings to shelters until someone wants to put a business in? Our homeless population is just gonna keep going up and our taxes won't get paid because the people that owe like my family just can't pay it and have a home. We should be helping people have homes and lower the standards. Take into consideration that a credit score in this economy needs to be changed and

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-10

maybe people like my family could get back on their feets and catch up and live instead of worrying about the next month's rent. We could qualify for low income housing if my husband quit his night job, but then no food or medicines or utilities. So I think the standards for low income should be changed to realize people can't just pay rent or morgages and not have food or medicines or utilities or transportation. Also we need to help renters and not just home owners or would be home owners. We have been renting for 13 yrs and can't put money away to even own a home. A credit to help would be great. Just some thoughts. This is a very big issue I feel strong about. My husband makes to much to be low income, but make too little to pay the rent and normal daily bills. Things have got to change or we will have more homeless and we might as well rent California to another country to pay our debts off. I know people who love California and really love Simi Valley, but had to move out of state cause they just couldn't afford to live here. I keep seeing homes sprout up that cost half a million to a million with no yards only to sit empty or be bought and then up for sale again soon after or sold and sit empty for months even years, like the homes across from Joann's Fabrics. Sorry this is all over the place, but as I said I feel strongly about housing issues and I wanted to voice my concerns. We need to help each other out to keep from all becoming homeless and/ or jobless. Simi Valley is losing jobs and businesses and Simi Valley is too great to go down the drain, but if we keep losing jobs and homes we will be a desert again soon. I love Simi Valley. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Barbara Anne Ungewitter Carrell

Dear Ms. Barbara Ann Ungewitter Carrell:

Thank you for commenting on the Draft 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice and the housing market in Simi Valley. Housing affordability, although a difficult problem, is not by itself a fair housing issue. The primary purpose of Fair Housing is to protect the dwelling seeker from seller or landlord discrimination. It does this by protecting the buyer's or renter's right to choose. The goal is a housing market in which a person's background (as opposed to financial resources) does not restrict access.

The City continues to address affordable housing needs for low-income households by providing limited financial assistance to qualified households through a variety of programs (e.g. First Time Homebuyer Program, Home Rehabilitation Assistance Program, rent subsidy programs, etc.) Unfortunately, the need for affordable housing exceeds available resources.

In the lending industry, credit scores are used to assess the risk that a person or household may default (stop paying) on a loan. Due to this latest housing crisis, lenders are more conservative, so the credit scores are being heavily scrutinized before offering a loan. Credit scores are also evaluated when rental applications are reviewed. A property manager may not want to offer a rental agreement to an applicant who’s credit rating is low or poor because it indicates the likelihood of whether or not rent will be paid on time.

There are many ways to improve credit or FICO scores. Banks typically have credit specialists that work with their clients on ways to improve their credit worthiness. There is a local non-profit organization, SurePath Financial Solutions (www.surepath.org or 1-877-615-7873) that offers advice on how to improve credit by working out payment plans with creditors. Helpful information is also available on the web through such websites as www.myfico.com and www.annualcreditreport.com.

Again, thank you for your comments. They will be included in the Ventura County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice public comment section. Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-11

Sincerely,

Shannon Nash

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix A: Public Outreach May 2010 Page A-12

Residents invited to comment on fair housing report | www.simivalleyacor... file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Jessica/Local%20Settings/Tem...

HOME Previous Page Contact Us Login

Other Publications The Acorn Camarillo Acorn Moorpark Acorn Simi Valley Acorn Thousand Oaks Acorn

News Community April 16, 2010 Search Archives Search Home Front Page Community Health & Residents invited to comment on fair housing report Wellness Datebook By Carissa Marsh [email protected] Business Schools The county released a report this month that evaluates whether or not residents have Sports experienced discrimination in obtaining housing. The numbers show incidents in Simi Police Faith Valley are few and problems are addressed in a timely manner. Family Dining & The Draft 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Ventura County is a Entertainment 252-page report detailing efforts throughout the county to provide fair housing and Letters incidents of discrimination or harassment in the housing market. Editorials Neighbors In addition, it analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit Real Estate a person’s housing choices or prevent their access to housing. Archive Advertising “It’s the way that the city is able to assess what the impediments are so that we can Advertising recommend funding priorities to reduce the impediments out there,” said Rob Bruce, Information deputy director of housing and special projects for the city. “This is the way that the City Private Party Council finds out from the community what the community’s experience is.” Order Rentals Order Federal fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in all aspects of housing, including the E-mail Us Copyright© 2004 - sale, rental, lease or negotiation for real property. 2009 J.Bee Publications All Rights Reserved In California, a person cannot be denied housing based on their race, color, religion, gender, age, marital or familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, medical condition, or source of income (such as welfare or Section 8).

Bruce said the number of discrimination incidents reported to the city is low.

Newspaper web site content “I think we’re doing a good job,” he said. “There are cases of people believing they’ve been management discriminated against and the Housing Rights Center gets involved immediately when it’s software and services brought to their attention, and they’ve done a lot of good work in resolving the issues, even when there isn’t a true discrimination case going on.”

The Housing Rights Center is a Los Angeles-based nonprofit working for justice and equality in housing

“They are really good at nego- tiating misunderstandings between landlords and tenants and making sure everyone is informed on where the lines are,” Bruce said.

In past years, the city has created its own fair housing report. However, due to the tough fiscal climate, Simi and the other cities in the county decided to rely on the countywide document to save money, Bruce said.

The county is currently seeking public comment on the document. Although a fair housing survey among residents was conducted last year and the results incorporated into the draft document, the 30-day review period gives residents another opportunity to share their experiences with the city, Bruce said.

And if additional issues arise that weren’t found in the survey, they will be included in the document, he said.

“The more public review we have and the more comments we receive, the better the document is going to facilitate addressing the issues that are remaining in the community,” he said.

Citizens can submit written comments to Meg Kimbell- Drewry, County Executive Office, County of Ventura, 800 S. Victoria Ave., L#1940, Ventura, CA 93009, or via e-mail to

1 of 2 4/22/2010 1:45 PM Residents invited to comment on fair housing report | www.simivalleyacor... file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Jessica/Local%20Settings/Tem...

meg.kimbelldrewry@ ventura.org.

Comments may also be sent to management analyst Carolyn Duncan at City of Simi Valley, Department of Environmental Services, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063, or via email to [email protected].

The County Board of Supervisors will also hear comments at a public hearing on May 4 at 10 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room at the Ventura County Government Center. On May 10, the Simi Valley City Council will consider consenting to the findings of the fair housing report.

The public can review the document at ceo.countyofventura .org (click on Quick Links, HUD Programs) and at www.simivalley .org.

Hard copies are available at the city clerk’s office, the Simi Valley Library, and the Development Services Building at 3855- A Alamo St.

2 of 2 4/22/2010 1:45 PM RELEASE OF DRAFT 2010 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE FOR VENTURA COUNTY, INCLUDING

CAMARILLO FOR 30-DAY PUBLIC REVIEW

y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING p

The County of Ventura is soliciting comments on the Draft 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for Ventura County that establishes a commitment towards providing equal housing opportunities for existing and future residents. The AI provides a comprehensive review of both public and private fair housing impediments and the effects of regulations, administrative policies, procedures and practices of the County and local jurisdictions on the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. Once the AI is adopted by the County and the Camarillo City Council consents to its findings, the document will apply to the City of Camarillo.

The document is currently available for public review on the County’s website at http://ceo.countyofventura.org (click on Quick Links, HUD Programs). The document is also available on the City’s website at www.ci.camarillo.ca.us, and in hard copy at the City of Camarillo located at 601 Carmen Drive; and at the Camarillo Public Library located at 4101 Las Posas Road, Camarillo.

During the review period, interested citizens are encouraged to submit comments in writing to the Board of Supervisors, c/o Meg Kimbell-Drewry, County Executive Office, County of Ventura, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, L#1940, Ventura, CA 93009; or via e-mail to [email protected]; or the Camarillo City Council, c/o Randy Richardson, Senior Planner at 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, CA 93010; or via e-mail to [email protected]. Written comments should reference the Draft 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Ventura County and be submitted prior to the respective public hearing dates indicated below.

On May 4, 2010, at 10 a.m., the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room located at the Ventura County Government Center, Hall of Administration, 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, California, to receive public comments on the AI and to consider adoption of the document.

On May 12, 2010, at 7:30 p.m., the Camarillo City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California, to receive public comments and consider consenting to the findings of the AI.

Any person interested in these matters is invited to attend and present testimony either for or against the above item. If you challenge the City’s proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or prior to the public hearing.

(Published in the Camarillo Star and posted on outside bulletin board on Friday, April 9, 2010, at Camarillo City Hall, 601 Carmen Drive, Camarillo, California.) NOTICE OF DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY AND PUBLIC HEARING COUNTY OF VENTURA

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); HOME Investment Partnership (HOME); Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)

Board of Supervisors Hearing Room Government Center, Hall of Administration 800 S. Victoria Ave., Ventura, CA 93009 MAY 4, 2010, 10:00 A.M.

Effective April 1, 2010, the County of Ventura will provide 30 days for public review and comment on the following documents for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):

County Entitlement Area’s FY 2010-12 Consolidated Plan (long range plan for future HUD spending); FY 2010-11 Annual Action Plan using $2,887,000 (est) for activities that primarily benefit lower-income households; Amended Citizen Participation Plan; and 2010 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for Ventura County.

The Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan address the unmet needs of low and moderate- income persons and persons with special needs who reside in the Entitlement Area (Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, Santa Paula, and unincorporated area).

The public will have until 5 p.m., Friday, April 30 to review and comment, followed by a public hearing on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 10:00 A.M., at the Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting.

The documents are available at the following City Halls: Fillmore, Moorpark, Ojai, Port Hueneme, and Santa Paula. Documents are also available at the Ventura County Executive Office and via the County’s website at http://ceo.countyofventura.org (click on Quick Links, HUD Programs). Final funding allocation numbers will be posted to the County of Ventura website when available.

Written comments should be directed to Meg Kimbell-Drewry, County Executive Office, County of Ventura, 800 S. Victoria Ave., L#1940, Ventura, CA 93009 or via email to [email protected].

Provisions to accommodate handicapped, hearing impaired and non-English speaking individuals will be made available at the public hearing upon 48-hour advance notice.

DATE AND TIME: Monday May 10, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

LOCATION: City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Poli Street, Ventura, CA.

PURPOSE: The City Council will consider the adoption of the 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan and the 2010-2011 Annual Action and Funding Plan for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) programs, funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Council will also receive and file the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice document. The City published its draft Consolidated Plan and Action Plan on April 16, 2010, for a 30-day public comment period. The pubic comment period ends May 17, 2010, at 5:00 p.m.

The primary purpose of the CDBG program is the development of viable communities, decent housing and expanding economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. The primary purpose of the HOME program is to provide housing opportunities for low-income persons.

• The 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan identifies the City’s housing and community development needs and outlines a strategy to address those needs for the next five years.

• The 2010-2011 Annual Funding and Action Plan details how CDBG and HOME funds will be expended during the upcoming fiscal year.

All interested persons are invited to be present and be heard. Written communications may be directed to: City Council, P. O. Box 99, Ventura, CA 93002-0099. For further information, contact Jennie A. Buckingham, Senior Planner, at (805) 658-4729 or [email protected].

April 30, 2010

MABI COVARRUBIAS PLISKY, MMC City Clerk

Pursuant to the California Government Code, please take notice: If you challenge the action described in this notice in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Buenaventura at, or prior to, the public hearing.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk’s Office at 658-4787 (Voice) or the California Relay Service. Notification by Thursday, May 7, 2009, at 12:00 p.m. will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Fair Housing Survey

Fair housing is a right protected by Federal and State laws. Each resident is entitled to equal access to housing opportunities regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, source of income, or any other arbitrary reason.

The cities and County of Ventura are conducting an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice. We want to hear from you about your experience with fair housing issues and concerns. Please fill in the following survey. Thank you.

1. Please indicate the ZIP Code of your residence ______

2. Have you ever experienced discrimination in housing?

____ YES ____ NO

3. Who do you believe discriminated against you?

___ a landlord/property manager ___ a real estate agent ___ a mortgage lender ___ a city/county staff person

4. Where did the act of discrimination occur?

___ an apartment complex ___ a condo development ___ a single-family neighborhood ___ a public or subsidized housing project ___ a trailer or mobilehome park ___ when applying for city/county programs

5. On what basis do you believe you were discriminated against (check all that apply)?

___ Race ___ Color ___ Religion ___ National Origin ___ Ancestry ___ Gender ___ Marital Status ___ Sexual Orientation ___ Age ___ Family Status ___ Source of Income ___ Disability (e.g. single-parent with children, family (e.g. welfare, unemployment (either you or someone close with children or expecting a child) insurance) to you) ___ Other (please elaborate: ______)

6. Have you ever been denied “reasonable accommodation” (flexibility) in rules, policies, or practices to accommodate your disability?

____ YES ____ NO

If YES, what was your request?

7. If you believe you have been discriminated against, have you reported the incident?

____ YES ____ NO

If NO – Why? ___ don’t know where to report ___ afraid of retaliation ___ don’t believe it makes any difference ___ too much trouble

8. If you own your home, are you already in the foreclosure process or at risk of foreclosure?

___ YES ___ NO

9. If YES, are you in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure due to (check all that apply):

______Loss of income/unemployment ______Monthly Payment is/will increase, we are unable to refinance home to a lower interest rate ______Monthly Payment is/will increase, we are unable to refinance home to a fixed rate loan ______A large one-time payment, built into the structure of the mortgage and due on a specific date, is required ______Significant increases in other housing costs (e.g. insurance, taxes, utilities, etc.) ______I owe more on the home than it is worth so why should I keep paying the mortgage

10. Has any hate crime been committed in your neighborhood?

____ YES ____ NO ____ Don’t Know

If YES, what was the basis (check all that apply)

THANK YOU!

Appendix B: Affordable Housing

Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County

# of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Camarillo Avalon Bay 1573 Flynn Road 37 2036 Bradford Apartments 131 W. Ponderosa Road 27 Perpetuity Camarillo Oaks 921 Pase Camarillo 73 2026 Casa de Sueno 257 Fulton Street 10 2053 Casa Velazquez 257 Fulton Street 12 2049 Corte Madera 5240 Corte Bocina 32 2020 Rent-Restricted Courtyard Apartments 350 Westpark Court 34 2038 Housing Meadowbrook 610 Calle la Roda 15 Perpetuity Mira Vista Village 2700 Ponderosa 305 Perpetuity Park Glenn Apartments 200 South Glenn Drive 160 2028 -- 200 South Glenn Drive 18 2030 Ponderosa Village 2105 E. Ponderosa Drive 90 On-Going Raemere Street Duplexes 92 & 94 Raemere Street 2 Perpetuity Ellis Terrace 1021-1051 Tample Avenue 27 Perpetuity Public Housing Subtotal 842 Fillmore Sarahang Apartments 341 Central Avenue 1 2062 Rent-Restricted Park View Senior Apartments 512 Main Street 50 2060 Glenn Stern Apts 400 Santa Clara Street 1 2060 Housing Central Station Rental Units 238-294 Main Street 21 2055 Subtotal 73 Moorpark Waterstone at Moorpark 4767 Moorpark Avenue 62 Perpetuity Rent-Restricted Vintage Crest Senior Apartments 4722 Parkcrest Lane 190 Perpetuity Housing Tafoya Terrace 344 Charles Street 31 Perpetuity Public Housing Subtotal 283 Ojai Montgomery Oaks 508-514 Montgomery Street 21 2063 Rent-Restricted Grand Avenue Apartments 210 N. Grand Avenue 5 Perpetuity Housing Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-1 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Summer Street Apartments 211 E. Summer Street 10 Perpetuity Whispering Oaks 999 E. Ojai Avenue 101 Perpetuity Public Housing Subtotal 137 Oxnard Camino del Sol Senior Apartments 1910 Camino Del Sol 120 2059 Casa Merced 840 W. Fifth Street 40 2054 Casa San Juan 500 Hobson Way 64 2051 Channel Islands Park Apartments 931 Bismark Way 152 2058 Cypress Court 490 E. Pleasant Valley 6 2037 Gateway Plaza Apartments 1719 S. Oxnard Boulevard 105 2056 Heritage Park Apartments 820 South “E” Street 195 2018 Holiday Manor Apartments 1924 Camino del Sol 195 2056 Meta Street 501 Meta Street 24 2059 Palm Terrace 711 South “C” Street 21 2056 Rent-Restricted Paseo Del Rio 287 Myrtle Avenue 86 2062 Housing Paseo El Prado Apartments 101 W. Collins Street 24 2026 Paseo Santa Clara 295 Myrtle Avenue 54 2062 Seawind Senior Apartments 4450 South Saviers Road 20 2020 Sycamore Senior Village 333 North “F” Street 195 2059 Tierra Vista Apartments 1750 Monte Vista Circle 10 2019 Villa Cesar Chavez 5559 Salvador Drive 52 2061 Villa Madera 1171 North “A” Street 72 2060 Villa Victoria 2100 N. Victoria Avenue 54 2062 Vineyard Gardens 161 Stroube Street 62 2055 Villa Solimar 910 Donlon Avenue 31 2051 Althea Court 1341-1387 Althea Court 20 Perpetuity Colonia Village 300 N. Marquita 430 Perpetuity Concord Drive 2940-3026 Concord Drive 20 Perpetuity Cuesta del Mar 640-666 Cuesta Del Mar 12 Perpetuity Public Housing Fashion Park 230-257 Fashion Park Place 24 Perpetuity Fremont Way 1330-1356 Fremont Way 12 Perpetuity Hill Street 215-237 Hill Street 12 Perpetuity Palm Vista 801 South “C” Street 100 Perpetuity Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-2 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Plaza Vista 401 South “C” Street 50 Perpetuity Pleasant Valley Village 510 Squires Road 100 Perpetuity Subtotal 2,362 Port Hueneme -- 730-736 Jane Drive 2 -- -- 760-766 Jane Drive 2 -- -- 771-775 Jane Drive 2 -- -- 781-785 Jane Drive 2 -- Rent-Restricted -- 780-786 Jane Drive 2 -- Housing -- 800-806 Jane Drive 2 -- -- 249 East “A” Street 8 -- -- 309-323 East “C” Street 2 -- -- 841 Jane Drive 5 -- Housing Authority 157 E. Scott Street 60 Perpetuity Public Housing Housing Authority 118 Willowbrook Drive 30 Perpetuity Subtotal 117 Santa Paula Casa Esperanza 220 S. Garcia Street 14 2043 Vista Hermosa 200 W. Santa Ana Street 24 2052 Harvard Place 320 W. Harvard Boulevard 40 2051 Santa Paula Senior Apartments 115 N. 4th Street 150 2037 Casa Bella 622 E. Main Street 40 2037 Rent-Restricted Reider Project Santa Ana Street 2 2053 Housing Citrus Court 517-611 East Harvard Boulevard 4 2049 Casa Garcia 200 South Garcia Street 14 2029 Judson 234 W. Harvard Boulevard 35 2052 Santa Paula Village 218 N. 8th Street 56 2037 Yale Street Apartment 739 Yale Street 28 2023 Subtotal 407 Simi Valley Patricia Apartments 1817 Patricia Avenue 7 Apricot Ranch 16 Rent-Restricted ARC Ventura County Vista del Monte 5957 E. Nelda Street 4 2058 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-3 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Archstone Simi Valley 1579 East Jefferson Way 50 2062 Housing Ashlee Manor 4583 Cochran Street 68 2033 Baywood Apartments 5377 Cochran Street 25 2016 Casa de Paz Apartments 1010 Ashland Avenue 14 2056 The Classics -- 34 -- Courtyard Apartments 1745 Patricia Avenue 5 2015 Creekside Apartments 1504 Patricia Avenue 80 2015 Harmony Terrace 905 Sunset Garden Lane 134 2055 Haven at Tapo Street 2245 Tapo Street 35 2063 Heywood Gardens 1770 Heywood Street 74 2034 Heywood Place Apartments 1765 Heywood Street 4 2018 Hidden Valley Apartments 5065 Hidden Park Courth 81 2054 Hillview Apartments 1791 Patricia Avenue 4 2060 Indian Oaks Apartments 5555 Cochran Street 51 2015 Kuehner Homes -- 11 -- La Rahada Apartments 1036 Ashland Avenue 8 -- Las Serenas 2090 Yosemite Avenue 107 2049 Paseo de Las Flores West side of Stearns 27 2059 Patricia Village 1561 Patricia Avenue 35 2019 Pattywood Place 1788 Patricia Avenue 4 2060 Pepper Tree Court 1415 Patricia Avenue 22 2018 Plaza del Sol Apartments 4231 Alamo Street 34 2059 Regency 1580 Yosemite Avenue 22 2016 Runkle Canyon Sequoia Avenue at the Canyon 62 -- Seasons 1662 Rory Lane 68 2055 Shadow Ridge Apartments 1987 Ridgegate Lane 69 2014 Sorrento Villas 415 Country Club Drive 146 2054 The Verandas -- 30 -- The Villas at Wood Ranch 241 Country Club Drive 101 2011 Vintage Paseo 2970 Tapo Canyon Road 176 2059 Westgate 1850 Williams Avenue 18 2018 Wood Ranch Seniors 190 Tierra Rejada Road 14 Peppertree Apartments 4214 Los Angeles Avenue 12 Perpetuity Public Housing Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-4 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Subtotal 1,652 Thousand Oaks Arroyo Villa Apartments 1600 Rancho Canejo Boulevard 40 2025 Bella Vista Apartments 2011-2025 Los Feliz Drive 72 2060 Conejo Future Apartments 130 Brazil Street 90 Perpetuity Esseff Village 1425 Thousand Oaks Boulevard 51 2031 Glenn Oaks 145 E. Wilbur Road 45 Perpetuity Hacienda de Feliz 2096 Los Feliz Drive 25 2058 Los Arboles 801-886 Calle Haya 43 Perpetuity Rent-Restricted Mount Clef Apartments 12 McAfee 3 2047 Housing Oak Creek Senior Villas 367 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard 57 Perpetuity Richmond Terrace 760 Warwick Drive 27 2059 Schillo Gardens 2849 Los Robles Road 29 2017 Shadow Apartments 1949 Los Feliz Drive 101 2060 Shadow Hills 227 Wilbur Road 148 2062 Sunset Villas 90, 100, & 110 Sunset Drive 11 Perpetuity Villa Garcia 1419 Thousand Oaks Boulevard 80 2030 Fiore Gardens 220-480 Hillcrest Drive 50 Perpetuity Florence Janss 190-210 Brazil Street 64 Perpetuity Public Housing Leggett Court 1824-1884 Los Feliz Drive 49 Perpetuity Subtotal 985 Unincorporated County Colina Vista 424 Main Street 11 2052 Palm Gardens Apartments 3607-10 Telegraph Road 3 2023 Rent-Restricted Summerwind Apartments 3807 E. Telegraph Road 15 Perpetuity Housing Valle Naranjal 4268 Center Street 11 2062 Roth Apartments 290 E. Roblar Drive 34 Perpetuity Public Housing Subtotal 74 Ventura Garden Estates 80 S. Garden Street 26 2013 Ventura Terrace 6600 Telephone Road 97 2011 Rent-Restricted Silvercrest 750 S. Petit Avenue 74 2011

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-5 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units Kalorama Apartments 167 S. Kalorama Apartments 24 2014 Housing Rose Garden 123 S. Ventura Avenue 14 2019 Casa de Anza 612 N. Ventura Avenue 14 2013 Cypress Meadows 1405 Cypress Point Lane 104 2023 Chapel Lane 11122 Snapdragon Street 38 2060 Weston Colony 1024 Britten Lane 33 2016 230-242 Ramona 242 W. Ramona Street 4 2019 72-82 Ramona 82 W. Ramona Street 3 2020 152-162 Bell Way 152 Bell Way 2 2019 664 Riverside 664 Riverside Street 2 2015 -- 206 E. Kellogg Street 1 Perpetuity -- 218 Kellogg Street 1Perpetuity -- 3157 Channel Drive 1 Perpetuity -- 3158 Channel Drive 1 Perpetuity -- 8806 N. Bank Drive 2 Perpetuity -- 3772 Birch Street 2 Perpetuity Buena Vida Apartments 9050 Telephone Road 95 Perpetuity -- 1325 Cachuma Avenue 1 Perpetuity Cambria Apartments 60 Cambria Avenue 20 Perpetuity Daisy Apartments 10540 Daisy Drive 20 Perpetuity -- 10373 Darling Road 1 Perpetuity Public Housing -- 239 S. Dos Caminos Street 1 Perpetuity -- 1330 Elsinore Avenue 1 Perpetuity Gregory Garden Apartments 9620 Telephone Road 51 Perpetuity -- 135 Hardling Avenue 1Perpetuity -- 217-233 W. Harrison Avenue 4 Perpetuity Hemlock Apartments 103 S. Hemlock Street 4 Perpetuity -- 372 Hurt Avenue 1 Perpetuity Jamestown Apartments 9808 Jamestown Street 20 Perpetuity -- 10408 Jamestown Street 1 Perpetuity -- 32 N. Joanne Avenue 4 Perpetuity -- 52 S. Laurel Street 8 Perpetuity -- 291-293 Lynn Drive 2 Perpetuity Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-6 # of Affordable Name Address Expiration Type Units -- 114-116 W. Mission Avenue 2 Perpetuity Mission Park Apartments 66 S. Ventura Avenue 53 Perpetuity -- 325-329 W. Park Row Avenue 4 Perpetuity Partridge Apartments 7995 Telephone Road 20 Perpetuity -- 1216 E. Santa Clara Street 28 Perpetuity -- 150-166 Santa Cruz Street 4 Perpetuity Sterling Apartments 1050 Partridge Drive 20 Perpetuity The Palm Apartments 137 S. Palm Street 75 Perpetuity Training for Independent Living Apts 148 S. Palm Street 16 Perpetuity -- 332 Valmore Avenue 1Perpetuity Villa Pacifica Apartments 1079 Johnson Drive 25 Perpetuity Vista del Monte Apartments 1055 Johnson Drive 25 Perpetuity Westview Village Apartments 2400 N. Ventura Avenue 20 Perpetuity -- 6064-6074 Woodland Avenue 2 Perpetuity Subtotal 973

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix B: Affordable Housing in Ventura County April 2010 Page B-7

Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Adolfo Park Camarillo 2.8 No Arneill Ranch Park Camarillo 4.9 No Camarillo Grove County Park Camarillo 40.9 Yes Camino Real Park Camarillo 50.0 No Dizdar Park Camarillo 2.4 Yes Dos Caminos Park Camarillo 4.9 No Freedom Park Camarillo 32.5 Yes Lokker Park Camarillo 5.0 No Mission Oaks Community Park Camarillo 35.8 Yes Mission Verde Park Camarillo 44.3 No Pleasant Valley Park Camarillo 10.7 No Quito Park Camarillo 5.6 No Spanish Hills Park Camarillo 55.2 Yes Springville Park Camarillo 5.8 Yes Trailside Park Camarillo 0.6 No Wood Creek Park Camarillo 4.9 No Woodside Linear Park Camarillo 14.9 No Central Park Fillmore 5.5 Yes Delores Day Park Fillmore 5.0 No Grupe Park or Meadowlark Park Fillmore 0.5 No Kenney Grove Park Fillmore 16.8 No Linear Park Fillmore 5.5 No Main Street Park Fillmore 5.7 Yes Shiells Park Fillmore 10.1 No Skate Park Fillmore 21.4 No Arroyo Vista Community Park Moorpark 104.4 No Campus Canyon Park Moorpark 6.3 No Country Trail Park Moorpark 6.8 No Happy Camp Canyon Reg Park Moorpark 1065.5 Yes Monte Vista Nature Park Moorpark 7.1 No Mountain Meadows Park Moorpark 8.7 No Paul Griffin Park Moorpark 7.2 No Peach Hill Park Moorpark 10.5 No Poindexter Park Moorpark 8.4 No South Meadows Park Moorpark 5.9 No Tierra Rejada Park Moorpark 105.6 Yes Camp Comfort Park Ojai 30.3 No Daly Ranch Park Ojai 47.5 No Dennison Park Ojai 34.6 Yes

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-1

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Libbey Park Ojai 14.2 No Sarzotti Park Ojai 10.1 Yes Soule Park Ojai 19.0 Yes Beck Park Oxnard 8.5 Yes Borchard Oak Park Oxnard 1.0 No Cabrillo Park Oxnard 6.0 No Campus Park Oxnard 30.0 No Carty Park Oxnard 4.9 No Central Park Oxnard 4.9 No Channel View Oxnard 0.8 No College Estates Park Oxnard 6.5 Yes College Park Oxnard 75.0 No Colonia Park Oxnard 9.7 Yes Community Center Park East Oxnard 11.0 Yes Community Center Park West Oxnard 4.0 Yes Connelly Park Oxnard 3.1 No Del Sol Park Oxnard 13.5 Yes (old) Del Sol Oxnard 4.0 No Durley Park Oxnard 11.0 Yes East Park Oxnard 4.5 No Eastwood Memorial Park Oxnard 4.2 Yes Fremont Tot Park Oxnard 1.5 No Garden City Acres Park Oxnard 5.5 No Gateway Park Oxnard 2.6 No Johnson Creek Park Oxnard 8.5 Yes Kohala Oxnard 1.1 No Lathrop Park Oxnard 3.0 Yes Lemonwood Park Oxnard 9.5 Yes Linear Park Oxnard 3.0 No Mandalay County Park Oxnard 104.4 Yes Marina West Park Oxnard 6.3 No McGrath State Beach Oxnard 220.6 No Neptune Square Park Oxnard 0.4 No Oxnard Beach Park Oxnard 62.0 No Peninsula Oxnard 3.5 No Pfeiler Oxnard 3.2 No Plaza Park Oxnard 2.0 Yes Pleasant Valley Park Oxnard 9.7 No Public Beaches Oxnard 15.6 No Rio Lindo Park Oxnard 8.5 No Rio del Mar Elementary Oxnard 9.1 No

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-2

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Rio Vista Middle School Oxnard 16.5 No Sea Air Park Oxnard 8.6 No Sea View Park Oxnard 6.4 No Seabridge Oxnard 13.6 No Sierra Linda Park Oxnard 6.2 Yes South Bank Park Oxnard 6.0 No South Winds Park Oxnard 7.5 Yes Southwest Community Park Oxnard 26.0 No Southwest Community Park Extension Oxnard 5.5 No Sports Park Oxnard 4.0 No Sports Park Oxnard 20.0 No Swim Beach Oxnard 3.8 No Thompson Park Oxnard 3.0 No Via Marina Park Oxnard 12.0 No Village Green Park Oxnard 1.3 No Vineyard Park Oxnard 7.0 No West Channel Oxnard 11.7 No West Village Park Oxnard 6.0 No Westport Oxnard 5.0 No Wilson Park Oxnard 5.0 No Windrow Park Oxnard 5.0 No Orchard Park Oxnard 12.6 No Bard Park Port Hueneme 21.0 No Bolker Park Port Hueneme 4.0 Yes Bubbling Springs Recreational Corridor Port Hueneme 7.0 No Dewar Park Port Hueneme 0.12 No Port Hueneme Beach Park Port Hueneme 87.3 No Walter B Moranda Park Port Hueneme 16.1 No Harding Park Santa Paula 14.5 Yes Las Piedras Park Santa Paula 6.4 Yes Memorial Park Santa Paula 8.7 No Mill Park Santa Paula 5.8 Yes Steckel Park Santa Paula 202.5 No Toland Park Santa Paula 221.3 No Arroyo Park Simi Valley 8.7 Yes Arroyo Simi Community Park Simi Valley 20.1 No Arroyo Simi Equestrian Center Simi Valley 9.1 No Arroyo Stow Park Simi Valley 2.6 No Atherwood Park Simi Valley 7.5 No Berylwood Park Simi Valley 5.5 No Big Sky Park Simi Valley 7.5 No

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-3

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Challenger Park Simi Valley 224.1 No Chumash Park & Chumash Trail Simi Valley 51.8 No Citrus Grove Park Simi Valley 5.4 No Corriganville Regional Park Simi Valley 231.4 No Coyote Hills Park Simi Valley 1.5 No Houghton Schreiber Park Simi Valley 9.3 No Knolls Park Simi Valley 2.8 No Lincoln Park Simi Valley 9.9 No Mayfair Park Simi Valley 6.4 No Oak Park Simi Valley 100.5 No Old Windmill Park Simi Valley 5.0 No Rancho Madera Community Park Simi Valley 28.2 No Rancho Santa Susana Comm Park Simi Valley 43.3 No Rancho Simi Community Park Simi Valley 36.5 No Rancho Tapo Community Park Simi Valley 24.9 No Rocky Pointe Natural Park Simi Valley 12.3 Yes Sage Ranch Park Simi Valley 635.0 No Santa Susana Park & Historic Rail Depot Simi Valley 17.0 No Sequoia Park Simi Valley 14.3 No Simi Hills Neighborhood Park Simi Valley 6.5 Yes Stargaze Park Simi Valley 4.1 No Strathearn Historic Park Simi Valley 5.5 Yes Sycamore Canyon Park Simi Valley 12.2 No Sycamore Park Simi Valley 21.2 No Tapo Canyon Park Simi Valley 205.4 No Tierra Rejada Park Simi Valley 9.6 No Verde Park Simi Valley 9.4 No Vista del Arroyo Prk Simi Valley 0.4 No Willowbrook Park Simi Valley 1.0 No Wood Ranch Open Space Park Simi Valley 463.2 No Banyan Park Thousand Oaks 7.1 No Canada Park Thousand Oaks 11.1 No Conejo Community Park Thousand Oaks 91.5 Yes Conejo Creek Park Thousand Oaks 167.7 Yes Dos Vientos Neighborhood Park Thousand Oaks 7.5 No El Parque de la Paz Thousand Oaks 5.8 Yes Estrella Park Thousand Oaks 1.7 Yes Evenstar Park Thousand Oaks 3.9 No Fiore Playfield Thousand Oaks 10.7 No Fort Wildwood Park Thousand Oaks 6.6 No Lang Ranch Park Thousand Oaks 5.7 No

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-4

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Lynn Oaks Park Thousand Oaks 22.9 No Newbury Park Thousand Oaks 10.4 No North Ranch Park Thousand Oaks 12.2 No North Ranch Playfield Thousand Oaks 15.9 No Oakbrook Neighborhood Park Thousand Oaks 5.4 Yes Oakbrook Park Thousand Oaks 60.8 No Oakbrook Regional Park Thousand Oaks 482.3 No Old Meadows Park Thousand Oaks 16.3 No Peppertree Playfield Thousand Oaks 24.9 Yes Rancho Conejo Community Park Thousand Oaks 14.2 No Russell Park Thousand Oaks 10.0 No South Shore Hills Park Thousand Oaks 4.6 No Spring Meadow Park Thousand Oaks 7.5 No Stagecoach Inn Park Thousand Oaks 17.8 No Suburbia Park Thousand Oaks 2.6 No Sunset Park Thousand Oaks 7.1 No Thousand Oaks Community Park Thousand Oaks 31.1 No Triunfo Community Park Thousand Oaks 20.8 No Waverly Park Thousand Oaks 8.9 No Wendy Park Thousand Oaks 5.1 No Wildflower Playfield Thousand Oaks 26.2 No Wildwood Regional Park Thousand Oaks 1197.0 No Conejo Mtn Mem Park Unincorporated County 115.7 No Eagle View Park Unincorporated County 8.0 No Emma Wood State Beach Unincorporated County 28.0 No Feraud Park Unincorporated County 85.4 No Grant Park Unincorporated County 149.8 Yes Indian Springs Park Unincorporated County 25.7 No Lake Casitas Rec Area Unincorporated County 314.2 Yes Mae Boyar Park Unincorporated County 7.0 No Medea Creek Park Unincorporated County 53.9 No Oak Canyon Community Park Unincorporated County 131.0 No Plaza Park Unincorporated County 4.8 Yes Point Mugu State Park Unincorporated County 13647.7 No Valley View Park Unincorporated County 9.6 No Ven-Tu Park Unincorporated County 19.7 No Warring Park Unincorporated County 4.5 No Arroyo Verde Park Ventura 159.5 No Barranca Vista Park Ventura 4.9 No Blanche Reynolds Park Ventura 5.7 No Bristol Bay Linear Park Ventura 18.3 No

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-5

Name Jurisdiction Acreage Low/Mod Brock Linear Park Ventura 3.2 Yes County Square Linear Park Ventura 23.6 Yes Foster Park Ventura 264.5 Yes Harry Lyon Park Ventura 6.3 Yes Hobert Park Ventura 7.6 No Huntzinger Sports Complex Ventura 19.5 No Juanamaria Park Ventura 6.2 No Junipero Park Ventura 8.8 No Marion Cannon Park Ventura 5.4 Yes Northbank Linear Park Ventura 14.6 No Olivas Park Ventura 56.6 No Rancho Ventura Linear Park Ventura 22.7 No Riverview Linear Park Ventura 5.4 No San Buenaventura State Beach Ventura 111.9 No Saticoy Park Ventura 3.5 No Seaside Wilderness Park Ventura 81.2 No West Park Ventura 10.4 Yes

Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Appendix C: Park Facilities in Ventura County April 2010 Page C-6

Appendix D: Detailed Income Data on Special Needs Populations

City of Camarillo Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 1,350 75.5% 1,674 83.7% 2,350 79.7% 11,860 80.5% 17,234 Black or African American 40 2.2% ‐ 0.0% 75 2.5% 234 1.6% 349 American Indian or Alaska Native ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 38 0.3% 42 Hispanic or Latino 225 12.6% 204 10.2% 369 12.5% 1,404 9.5% 2,202 Asian 115 6.4% 79 4.0% 70 2.4% 875 5.9% 1,139 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.1% 19 0.1% 23 Other 57 3.2% 38 1.9% 80 2.7% 308 2.1% 482 Total 100% per Income Category 1,787 100.0% 1,999 100.0% 2,948 100.0% 14,738 100.0% 21,472 Elderly 1,029 57.6% 1,089 54.5% 1,293 43.9% 3,189 21.6% 6,600 Disabled 499 27.9% 438 21.9% 594 20.1% 1,895 12.9% 3,427 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 595 415 239 1,249 1,350 270 155 1,775 3,024 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 300 115 115 530 585 140 95 820 1,350 % with any housing problems 65 52.2 60.9 61.3 70.9 89.3 68.4 73.8 68.9 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 295 300 124 719 765 130 60 955 1,674 % with any housing problems 72.9 80 96.8 80 34.6 92.3 83.3 45.5 60.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 165 435 120 720 1,035 450 145 1,630 2,350 % with any housing problems 60.6 59.8 87.5 64.6 23.2 81.1 75.9 43.9 50.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI 350 1,175 655 2,180 2,600 6,090 990 9,680 11,860 % with any housing problems 20 19.1 11.5 17 8.3 20.9 30.3 18.5 18.2 6. Total Households 1,110 2,025 1,014 4,149 4,985 6,810 1,290 13,085 17,234 % with any housing problems 52.3 38.8 36.5 41.8 22.8 27.7 40.7 27.1 30.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 0 20 0 20 10 10 0 20 40 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 0 20 0 20 10 10 0 20 40 % with any housing problems N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 40 0 40 20 15 0 35 75 % with any housing problems N/A 0 N/A 0 100 100 N/A 100 46.7 5. Household Income >80% MFI 4303064458540170234 % with any housing problems 0 0 0 0 44.4 23.5 25 29.4 21.4 6. Total Households 4 90 30 124 75 110 40 225 349 % with any housing problems 0 22.2 0 16.1 66.7 40.9 25 46.7 35.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 24 38 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 16.7 47.4 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 18 N/A N/A N/A 24 42 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 16.7 52.4 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 35 250 65 350 45 34 0 79 429 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 35 110 30 175 35 15 0 50 225 % with any housing problems 42.9 90.9 50 74.3 71.4 100 N/A 80 75.6 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 140 35 175 10 19 0 29 204 % with any housing problems N/A 89.3 100 91.4 100 21.1 N/A 48.3 85.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 155 30 185 40 130 14 184 369 % with any housing problems N/A 71 50 67.6 0 69.2 71.4 54.3 61 5. Household Income >80% MFI 10 325 50 385 54 845 120 1,019 1,404 % with any housing problems 100 43.1 0 39 7.4 30.2 33.3 29.3 32 6. Total Households 45 730 145 920 139 1,009 134 1,282 2,202 % with any housing problems 55.6 65.1 44.8 61.4 28.1 36.1 37.3 35.3 46.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 84 N/A N/A N/A 110 194 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 65 N/A N/A N/A 50 115 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 53.8 N/A N/A N/A 80 65.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 19 N/A N/A N/A 60 79 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 78.9 N/A N/A N/A 100 94.9 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 45 70 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A N/A 55.6 57.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 180 N/A N/A N/A 695 875 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 16.7 N/A N/A N/A 38.8 34.3 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 289 N/A N/A N/A 850 1,139 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 32.9 N/A N/A N/A 46.5 43 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 4 19 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 19 N/A N/A N/A 4 23 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Camarillo city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 180 64 135 379 400 95 63 558 937 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 100 50 90 240 210 45 4 259 499 % with any housing problems 55 60 72.2 62.5 76.2 77.8 100 76.8 69.9 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 80 14 45 139 190 50 59 299 438 % with any housing problems 68.8 28.6 100 74.8 21.1 50 93.2 40.1 51.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 44 10 40 94 275 130 95 500 594 % with any housing problems 90.9 0 62.5 69.1 21.8 34.6 52.6 31 37 5. Household Income >80% MFI 70 25 180 275 465 340 815 1,620 1,895 % with any housing problems 42.9 0 38.9 36.4 4.3 14.7 19 13.9 17.2 6. Total Households 294 99 355 748 1,140 565 973 2,678 3,426 % with any housing problems 61.2 34.3 57.7 56 24.6 27.4 27.1 26.1 32.6 City of Fillmore Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 197 28.7% 250 37.9% 315 40.7% 814 49.9% 1,576 Black or African American ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% 4 American Indian or Alaska Native ‐ 0.0% 4 0.6% ‐ 0.0% 10 0.6% 14 Hispanic or Latino 459 66.9% 385 58.4% 435 56.2% 738 45.3% 2,019 Asian ‐ 0.0% 4 0.6% ‐ 0.0% 14 0.9% 18 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% 4 Other 30 4.4% 16 2.4% 24 3.1% 46 2.8% 114 Total 100% per Income Category 686 100.0% 659 100.0% 774 100.0% 1,630 100.0% 3,749 Elderly 239 34.8% 145 22.0% 140 18.1% 260 16.0% 784 Disabled 235 34.3% 119 18.1% 189 24.4% 287 17.6% 831 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 14 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.6 28.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 18 18 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22.2 22.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 79 100 39 218 140 39 50 229 447 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 69 50 14 133 45 4 15 64 197 % with any housing problems 94.2 70 28.6 78.2 55.6 100 100 68.8 75.1 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 10 50 25 85 95 35 35 165 250 % with any housing problems 100 100 60 88.2 31.6 100 71.4 54.5 66 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 10 50 40 100 115 90 10 215 315 % with any housing problems 100 80 62.5 75 8.7 44.4 100 27.9 42.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI 20 80 24 124 225 420 45 690 814 % with any housing problems 50 18.8 16.7 23.4 6.7 22.6 33.3 18.1 18.9 6. Total Households 109 230 103 442 480 549 105 1,134 1,576 % with any housing problems 87.2 60.9 46.6 64 16.7 31.7 61.9 28.1 38.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 000000000 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI 000004044 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A 100 100 6. Total Households 000004044 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A 100 100 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 55 500 30 585 100 144 15 259 844 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 25 260 30 315 90 39 15 144 459 % with any housing problems 60 80.8 66.7 77.8 88.9 89.7 100 90.3 81.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 30 240 0 270 10 105 0 115 385 % with any housing problems 100 100 N/A 100 0 90.5 N/A 82.6 94.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 170 10 180 15 240 0 255 435 % with any housing problems N/A 76.5 0 72.2 100 85.4 N/A 86.3 80.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 165 10 175 15 540 8 563 738 % with any housing problems N/A 36.4 0 34.3 0 35.2 50 34.5 34.4 6. Total Households 55 835 50 940 130 924 23 1,077 2,017 % with any housing problems 81.8 76.6 40 75 73.1 56.8 82.6 59.3 66.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 10 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Fillmore city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 35 35 110 180 60 30 84 174 354 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 35 25 65 125 50 30 30 110 235 % with any housing problems 100 100 53.8 76 80 100 100 90.9 83 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 10 45 55 10 0 54 64 119 % with any housing problems N/A 100 100 100 0 N/A 74.1 62.5 79.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 10 0 55 65 30 14 80 124 189 % with any housing problems 100 N/A 100 100 33.3 0 62.5 48.4 66.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 0 64 64 69 10 144 223 287 % with any housing problems N/A N/A 37.5 37.5 5.8 0 58.3 39.5 39 6. Total Households 45 35 229 309 159 54 308 521 830 % with any housing problems 100 100 69.4 77.3 34 55.6 66.2 55.3 63.5 City of Moorpark Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 323 57.0% 334 52.4% 694 60.9% 5,094 77.0% 6,445 Black or African American ‐ 0.0% 24 3.8% 45 4.0% 179 2.7% 248 American Indian or Alaska Native 8 1.4% ‐ 0.0% 14 1.2% 15 0.2% 37 Hispanic or Latino 208 36.7% 248 38.9% 342 30.0% 845 12.8% 1,644 Asian 4 0.7% 10 1.6% 4 0.4% 360 5.4% 378 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 24 0.4% 24 Other 24 4.2% 21 3.3% 40 3.5% 98 1.5% 182 Total 100% per Income Category 567 100.0% 637 100.0% 1,139 100.0% 6,615 100.0% 8,958 Elderly 187 33.0% 54 8.5% 164 14.4% 322 4.9% 727 Disabled 109 19.2% 95 14.9% 246 21.6% 640 9.7% 1,091 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 39 120 38 197 125 245 90 460 657 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 29 45 14 88 90 80 65 235 323 % with any housing problems 86.2 66.7 28.6 67 88.9 87.5 76.9 85.1 80.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 10 75 24 109 35 165 25 225 334 % with any housing problems 0 100 83.3 87.2 100 87.9 100 91.1 89.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 145 4 149 130 335 80 545 694 % with any housing problems N/A 86.2 100 86.6 46.2 79.1 62.5 68.8 72.6 5. Household Income >80% MFI 14 400 90 504 280 3,860 450 4,590 5,094 % with any housing problems 71.4 13.8 22.2 16.9 12.5 26.8 33.3 26.6 25.6 6. Total Households 53 665 132 850 535 4,440 620 5,595 6,445 % with any housing problems 66 42.9 36.4 43.3 39.3 34.1 44.4 35.7 36.7 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 020020004424 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 020020004424 % with any housing problems N/A 100 N/A 100 N/A N/A 100 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 20 10 30 0 15 0 15 45 % with any housing problems N/A 50 100 66.7 N/A 100 N/A 100 77.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 40 0 40 4 110 25 139 179 % with any housing problems N/A 0 N/A 0 0 27.3 40 28.8 22.3 6. Total Households 0 80 10 90 4 125 29 158 248 % with any housing problems N/A 37.5 100 44.4 0 36 48.3 37.3 39.9 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 4 208 10 222 59 150 25 234 456 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 479109355600115208 % with any housing problems 100 94.9 100 95.7 81.8 100 N/A 91.3 93.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 129 0 129 4 90 25 119 248 % with any housing problems N/A 96.9 N/A 96.9 0 88.9 100 88.2 92.7 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 4 145 4 153 19 170 0 189 342 % with any housing problems 100 79.3 0 77.8 78.9 79.4 N/A 79.4 78.7 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 110 25 135 20 660 30 710 845 % with any housing problems N/A 45.5 0 37 0 46.2 0 43 42 6. Total Households 8 463 39 510 98 980 55 1,133 1,643 % with any housing problems 100 78.8 25.6 75.1 61.2 59.2 45.5 58.7 63.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4 8 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4 8 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 10 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 100 71.4 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 15 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 29 37 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 48.3 48.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 14 14 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 360 360 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31.9 31.9 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 378 378 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35.2 35.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 4 24 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 4 24 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Moorpark city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 4 8 39 51 24 25 104 153 204 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 4 8 4 16 24 25 44 93 109 % with any housing problems 100 50 100 75 100 60 90.9 84.9 83.5 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 0 35 35 0 0 60 60 95 % with any housing problems N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A 75 75 84.2 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 4 85 89 35 18 104 157 246 % with any housing problems N/A 100 100 100 28.6 22.2 52.9 43.9 64.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI 4 0 40 44 79 38 479 596 640 % with any housing problems 100 N/A 75 77.3 5.1 50 28 26.3 29.8 6. Total Households 8 12 164 184 138 81 687 906 1,090 % with any housing problems 100 66.7 93.9 92.4 27.5 46.9 39.9 38.6 47.7 City of Ojai Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 395 84.4% 260 76.9% 530 85.3% 1,455 89.2% 2,640 Black or African American ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ American Indian or Alaska Native ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ Hispanic or Latino 79 16.9% 50 14.8% 64 10.3% 109 6.7% 302 Asian ‐ 0.0% 10 3.0% 10 1.6% 45 2.8% 65 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% 4 Other (6) ‐1.3% 18 5.3% 17 2.7% 19 1.2% 48 Total 100% per Income Category 468 100.0% 338 100.0% 621 100.0% 1,632 100.0% 3,059 Elderly 224 47.9% 125 37.0% 219 35.3% 435 26.7% 1,003 Disabled 145 31.0% 64 18.9% 114 18.4% 250 15.3% 574 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 160 130 105 395 150 90 20 260 655 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 135 85 85 305 70 10 10 90 395 % with any housing problems 55.6 100 47.1 65.6 78.6 100 0 72.2 67.1 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 25 45 20 90 80 80 10 170 260 % with any housing problems 100 100 100 100 68.8 87.5 100 79.4 86.5 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 50 105 75 230 155 95 50 300 530 % with any housing problems 70 47.6 20 43.5 38.7 89.5 70 60 52.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 120 190 130 440 295 620 100 1,015 1,455 % with any housing problems 29.2 13.2 0 13.6 11.9 27.4 45 24.6 21.3 6. Total Households 330 425 310 1,065 600 805 170 1,575 2,640 % with any housing problems 51.5 48.2 24.2 42.3 34.2 41.6 52.9 40 40.9 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 000000000 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Total Households 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 10 70 10 90 14 25 0 39 129 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 10 45 10 65 4 10 0 14 79 % with any housing problems 100 100 0 84.6 100 100 N/A 100 87.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 25 0 25 10 15 0 25 50 % with any housing problems N/A 100 N/A 100 100 100 N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 14 0 14 0 50 0 50 64 % with any housing problems N/A 28.6 N/A 28.6 N/A 60 N/A 60 53.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 45 4 49 15 30 15 60 109 % with any housing problems N/A 22.2 0 20.4 100 66.7 0 58.3 41.3 6. Total Households 10 129 14 153 29 105 15 149 302 % with any housing problems 100 65.1 0 61.4 100 71.4 0 69.8 65.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 0 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 20 45 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A 0 22.2 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 30 65 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 57.1 N/A N/A N/A 33.3 46.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ojai city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 70 10 65 145 24 30 10 64 209 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 45 10 50 105 20 10 10 40 145 % with any housing problems 22.2 0 80 47.6 50 100 100 75 55.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 25 0 15 40 4 20 0 24 64 % with any housing problems 100 N/A 100 100 0 50 N/A 41.7 78.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 015193435103580114 % with any housing problems N/A 0 78.9 44.1 28.6 100 42.9 43.8 43.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI 20 10 65 95 55 20 80 155 250 % with any housing problems 0 0 15.4 10.5 18.2 0 12.5 12.9 12 6. Total Households 90 35 149 274 114 60 125 299 573 % with any housing problems 38.9 0 53.7 42 26.3 50 28 31.8 36.6 City of Oxnard Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 1,540 24.0% 1,490 23.4% 2,770 29.5% 9,210 43.1% 15,010 Black or African American 359 5.6% 165 2.6% 334 3.6% 1,100 5.1% 1,958 American Indian or Alaska Native 14 0.2% 4 0.1% 28 0.3% 124 0.6% 170 Hispanic or Latino 3,999 62.4% 4,410 69.1% 5,510 58.6% 8,395 39.3% 22,316 Asian 335 5.2% 164 2.6% 560 6.0% 2,115 9.9% 3,174 Pacific Islander 24 0.4% 30 0.5% 34 0.4% 89 0.4% 177 Other 135 2.1% 117 1.8% 163 1.7% 341 1.6% 754 Total 100% per Income Category 6,406 100.0% 6,380 100.0% 9,399 100.0% 21,374 100.0% 43,559 Elderly 1,690 26.4% 1,051 16.5% 1,310 13.9% 2,934 13.7% 6,985 Disabled 1,660 25.9% 1,395 21.9% 1,960 20.9% 3,509 16.4% 8,525 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 510 540 470 1,520 960 355 195 1,510 3,030 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 345 285 240 870 465 105 100 670 1,540 % with any housing problems 79.7 91.2 85.4 85.1 58.1 57.1 55 57.5 73.1 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 165 255 230 650 495 250 95 840 1,490 % with any housing problems 63.6 96.1 91.3 86.2 40.4 66 47.4 48.8 65.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 100 675 380 1,155 745 630 240 1,615 2,770 % with any housing problems 35 55.6 48.7 51.5 20.8 63.5 60.4 43.3 46.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 225 1,160 690 2,075 2,040 4,135 960 7,135 9,210 % with any housing problems 6.7 22.8 8.7 16.4 11.3 21.6 31.8 20 19.2 6. Total Households 835 2,375 1,540 4,750 3,745 5,120 1,395 10,260 15,010 % with any housing problems 51.5 48.2 42.9 47.1 22.8 29.7 39.4 28.5 34.4 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 64 190 108 362 129 29 4 162 524 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 50 100 79 229 115 15 0 130 359 % with any housing problems 50 85 94.9 80.8 78.3 100 N/A 80.8 80.8 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 14 90 29 133 14 14 4 32 165 % with any housing problems 71.4 88.9 86.2 86.5 28.6 71.4 100 56.3 80.6 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 15 120 75 210 19 90 15 124 334 % with any housing problems 100 54.2 26.7 47.6 21.1 83.3 100 75.8 58.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 340 105 445 60 515 80 655 1,100 % with any housing problems N/A 14.7 0 11.2 16.7 28.2 37.5 28.2 21.4 6. Total Households 79 650 288 1,017 208 634 99 941 1,958 % with any housing problems 63.3 43.1 41.7 44.2 51.9 38.6 49.5 42.7 43.5 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 470 5,270 365 6,105 400 1,820 84 2,304 8,409 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 340 2,585 175 3,100 245 610 44 899 3,999 % with any housing problems 66.2 95.4 68.6 90.6 63.3 82 90.9 77.3 87.6 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 130 2,685 190 3,005 155 1,210 40 1,405 4,410 % with any housing problems 53.8 91.6 78.9 89.2 48.4 90.5 62.5 85.1 87.9 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 65 2,540 205 2,810 230 2,355 115 2,700 5,510 % with any housing problems 38.5 78 58.5 75.6 41.3 82.6 65.2 78.3 77 5. Household Income >80% MFI 15 2,020 410 2,445 330 5,345 275 5,950 8,395 % with any housing problems 0 60.6 29.3 55 9.1 52.4 63.6 50.5 51.8 6. Total Households 550 9,830 980 11,360 960 9,520 474 10,954 22,314 % with any housing problems 58.2 82.7 52 78.9 37 66.6 66.5 64 71.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 18 N/A N/A N/A 0 18 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 0 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 71.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 71.4 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 8 28 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 50 14.3 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 114 124 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 12.3 11.3 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 48 N/A N/A N/A 122 170 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 29.2 N/A N/A N/A 14.8 18.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 259 N/A N/A N/A 240 499 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 220 N/A N/A N/A 115 335 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 70.5 N/A N/A N/A 65.2 68.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 39 N/A N/A N/A 125 164 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 89.7 N/A N/A N/A 52 61 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 260 N/A N/A N/A 300 560 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 65.4 N/A N/A N/A 81.7 74.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 430 N/A N/A N/A 1,685 2,115 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 55.8 N/A N/A N/A 39.2 42.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 949 N/A N/A N/A 2,225 3,174 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 63.2 N/A N/A N/A 47 51.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 39 N/A N/A N/A 15 54 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 24 N/A N/A N/A 0 24 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 83.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 83.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 15 30 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 4 34 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 33.3 N/A N/A N/A 100 41.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 74 89 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 18.9 15.7 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 84 N/A N/A N/A 93 177 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 53.6 N/A N/A N/A 35.5 44.1 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Oxnard city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 300 205 1,435 1,940 275 255 585 1,115 3,055 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 225 125 825 1,175 160 100 225 485 1,660 % with any housing problems 73.3 68 93.3 86.8 59.4 40 86.7 68 81.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 75 80 610 765 115 155 360 630 1,395 % with any housing problems 40 62.5 94.3 85.6 30.4 45.2 77.8 61.1 74.6 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 35 15 705 755 265 140 800 1,205 1,960 % with any housing problems 42.9 0 73.8 70.9 13.2 57.1 69.4 55.6 61.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 20 75 700 795 275 334 2,105 2,714 3,509 % with any housing problems 50 13.3 49.3 45.9 3.6 20.7 42.3 35.7 38 6. Total Households 355 295 2,840 3,490 815 729 3,490 5,034 8,524 % with any housing problems 62 49.2 77.8 73.8 21.5 35.5 55 46.8 57.8 City of Port Hueneme Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 565 52.6% 748 58.6% 825 52.4% 2,024 60.8% 4,162 Black or African American 50 4.7% 89 7.0% 119 7.6% 180 5.4% 438 American Indian or Alaska Native 20 1.9% ‐ 0.0% 10 0.6% 18 0.5% 48 Hispanic or Latino 388 36.1% 380 29.8% 469 29.8% 835 25.1% 2,073 Asian 44 4.1% 35 2.7% 95 6.0% 194 5.8% 368 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 15 1.0% ‐ 0.0% 15 Other 8 0.7% 25 2.0% 41 2.6% 76 2.3% 149 Total 100% per Income Category 1,075 100.0% 1,277 100.0% 1,574 100.0% 3,327 100.0% 7,253 Elderly 400 37.2% 365 28.6% 285 18.1% 635 19.1% 1,685 Disabled 324 30.1% 284 22.2% 194 12.3% 540 16.2% 1,343 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 220 380 194 794 395 64 60 519 1,313 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 135 130 95 360 145 45 15 205 565 % with any housing problems 70.4 69.2 63.2 68.1 69 100 100 78 71.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 85 250 99 434 250 19 45 314 748 % with any housing problems 76.5 48 96 64.5 30 78.9 77.8 39.8 54.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 275 120 395 245 125 60 430 825 % with any housing problems N/A 38.2 12.5 30.4 36.7 84 50 52.3 41.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 90 390 214 694 450 670 210 1,330 2,024 % with any housing problems 11.1 20.5 1.9 13.5 13.3 20.1 21.4 18 16.5 6. Total Households 310 1,045 528 1,883 1,090 859 330 2,279 4,162 % with any housing problems 54.8 37.8 33 39.2 29.8 34.9 37.9 32.9 35.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 15 100 24 139 0 0 0 0 139 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 15 15 20 50 0 0 0 0 50 % with any housing problems 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 085489000089 % with any housing problems N/A 52.9 0 50.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.6 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 70 25 95 0 14 10 24 119 % with any housing problems N/A 35.7 0 26.3 N/A 71.4 100 83.3 37.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 10 45 50 105 20 45 10 75 180 % with any housing problems 0 33.3 20 23.8 0 44.4 0 26.7 25 6. Total Households 25 215 99 339 20 59 20 99 438 % with any housing problems 60 46.5 30.3 42.8 0 50.8 50 40.4 42.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 80 510 39 629 25 104 10 139 768 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 70 235 19 324 10 44 10 64 388 % with any housing problems 71.4 95.7 21.1 86.1 100 90.9 100 93.8 87.4 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 10 275 20 305 15 60 0 75 380 % with any housing problems 100 85.5 100 86.9 100 100 N/A 100 89.5 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 105 80 185 14 260 10 284 469 % with any housing problems N/A 61.9 56.3 59.5 28.6 75 100 73.6 68 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 250 65 315 15 465 40 520 835 % with any housing problems N/A 34 15.4 30.2 0 45.2 75 46.2 40.1 6. Total Households 80 865 184 1,129 54 829 60 943 2,072 % with any housing problems 75 70.5 42.9 66.3 53.7 60.9 83.3 61.9 64.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 10 20 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 10 20 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 100 50 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 0 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 4 18 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A N/A 14 48 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 20.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 4 79 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A 4 44 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 100 54.5 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 0 35 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A N/A 35 95 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 57.1 52.6 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 99 194 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 36.8 N/A N/A N/A 29.3 33 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 230 N/A N/A N/A 138 368 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 52.2 N/A N/A N/A 38.4 47 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 90 65 235 390 125 59 34 218 608 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 60 45 125 230 50 24 20 94 324 % with any housing problems 75 100 76 80.4 60 83.3 100 74.5 78.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 30 20 110 160 75 35 14 124 284 % with any housing problems 66.7 100 86.4 84.4 46.7 57.1 28.6 47.6 68.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 0 40 40 50 20 84 154 194 % with any housing problems N/A N/A 37.5 37.5 40 0 70.2 51.3 48.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 30 165 195 90 60 195 345 540 % with any housing problems N/A 0 30.3 25.6 11.1 0 33.3 21.7 23.1 6. Total Households 90 95 440 625 265 139 313 717 1,342 % with any housing problems 72.2 68.4 58 61.6 35.8 28.8 47.3 39.5 49.8 City of Port Hueneme Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 565 52.6% 748 58.6% 825 52.4% 2,024 60.8% 4,162 Black or African American 50 4.7% 89 7.0% 119 7.6% 180 5.4% 438 American Indian or Alaska Native 20 1.9% ‐ 0.0% 10 0.6% 18 0.5% 48 Hispanic or Latino 388 36.1% 380 29.8% 469 29.8% 835 25.1% 2,073 Asian 44 4.1% 35 2.7% 95 6.0% 194 5.8% 368 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 15 1.0% ‐ 0.0% 15 Other 8 0.7% 25 2.0% 41 2.6% 76 2.3% 149 Total 100% per Income Category 1,075 100.0% 1,277 100.0% 1,574 100.0% 3,327 100.0% 7,253 Elderly 400 37.2% 365 28.6% 285 18.1% 635 19.1% 1,685 Disabled 324 30.1% 284 22.2% 194 12.3% 540 16.2% 1,343 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 15 100 24 139 0 0 0 0 139 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 15 15 20 50 0 0 0 0 50 % with any housing problems 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 085489000089 % with any housing problems N/A 52.9 0 50.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 50.6 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 70 25 95 0 14 10 24 119 % with any housing problems N/A 35.7 0 26.3 N/A 71.4 100 83.3 37.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 10 45 50 105 20 45 10 75 180 % with any housing problems 0 33.3 20 23.8 0 44.4 0 26.7 25 6. Total Households 25 215 99 339 20 59 20 99 438 % with any housing problems 60 46.5 30.3 42.8 0 50.8 50 40.4 42.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 80 510 39 629 25 104 10 139 768 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 70 235 19 324 10 44 10 64 388 % with any housing problems 71.4 95.7 21.1 86.1 100 90.9 100 93.8 87.4 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 10 275 20 305 15 60 0 75 380 % with any housing problems 100 85.5 100 86.9 100 100 N/A 100 89.5 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 105 80 185 14 260 10 284 469 % with any housing problems N/A 61.9 56.3 59.5 28.6 75 100 73.6 68 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 250 65 315 15 465 40 520 835 % with any housing problems N/A 34 15.4 30.2 0 45.2 75 46.2 40.1 6. Total Households 80 865 184 1,129 54 829 60 943 2,072 % with any housing problems 75 70.5 42.9 66.3 53.7 60.9 83.3 61.9 64.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 10 20 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 10 20 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 100 50 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 0 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 4 18 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A N/A 14 48 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 20.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 4 79 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A 4 44 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 100 54.5 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 0 35 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A N/A 35 95 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 57.1 52.6 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 99 194 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 36.8 N/A N/A N/A 29.3 33 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 230 N/A N/A N/A 138 368 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 52.2 N/A N/A N/A 38.4 47 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Port Hueneme city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 90 65 235 390 125 59 34 218 608 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 60 45 125 230 50 24 20 94 324 % with any housing problems 75 100 76 80.4 60 83.3 100 74.5 78.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 30 20 110 160 75 35 14 124 284 % with any housing problems 66.7 100 86.4 84.4 46.7 57.1 28.6 47.6 68.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 0 40 40 50 20 84 154 194 % with any housing problems N/A N/A 37.5 37.5 40 0 70.2 51.3 48.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 30 165 195 90 60 195 345 540 % with any housing problems N/A 0 30.3 25.6 11.1 0 33.3 21.7 23.1 6. Total Households 90 95 440 625 265 139 313 717 1,342 % with any housing problems 72.2 68.4 58 61.6 35.8 28.8 47.3 39.5 49.8 City of Santa Paula Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 560 35.2% 490 33.3% 570 34.0% 1,668 48.9% 3,288 Black or African American 10 0.6% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% 15 0.4% 29 American Indian or Alaska Native 10 0.6% 14 1.0% ‐ 0.0% 8 0.2% 32 Hispanic or Latino 1,005 63.2% 962 65.4% 1,095 65.3% 1,680 49.3% 4,744 Asian 4 0.3% 4 0.3% 4 0.2% 20 0.6% 32 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 4 0.2% ‐ 0.0% 4 Other ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 1 0.1% 20 0.6% (18) Total 100% per Income Category 1,589 100.0% 1,470 100.0% 1,678 100.0% 3,411 100.0% 8,111 Elderly 544 34.2% 325 22.1% 364 21.7% 549 16.1% 1,782 Disabled 472 29.7% 384 26.1% 482 28.7% 542 15.9% 1,881 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 210 205 110 525 300 130 95 525 1,050 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 135 115 75 325 140 50 45 235 560 % with any housing problems 74.1 82.6 80 78.5 64.3 70 77.8 68.1 74.1 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 75 90 35 200 160 80 50 290 490 % with any housing problems 66.7 72.2 100 75 15.6 75 60 39.7 54.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 30 125 20 175 220 130 45 395 570 % with any housing problems 0 52 0 37.1 13.6 46.2 33.3 26.6 29.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 29 155 94 278 400 875 115 1,390 1,668 % with any housing problems 13.8 9.7 4.3 8.3 10 18.9 13 15.8 14.6 6. Total Households 269 485 224 978 920 1,135 255 2,310 3,288 % with any housing problems 57.2 49.5 44.2 50.4 20.1 28.2 37.3 26 33.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 001010000010 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 001010000010 % with any housing problems N/A N/A 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 000000000 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 040400004 % with any housing problems N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI 000001501515 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 6. Total Households 0 4 10 14 0 15 0 15 29 % with any housing problems N/A 0 100 71.4 N/A 0 N/A 0 34.5 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 159 1,185 69 1,413 190 335 29 554 1,967 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 140 595 45 780 130 85 10 225 1,005 % with any housing problems 71.4 89.1 100 86.5 65.4 88.2 100 75.6 84.1 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 19 590 24 633 60 250 19 329 962 % with any housing problems 21.1 86.4 83.3 84.4 41.7 90 78.9 80.5 83.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 15 450 40 505 95 485 10 590 1,095 % with any housing problems 0 78.9 62.5 75.2 21.1 83.5 100 73.7 74.4 5. Household Income >80% MFI 15 435 70 520 95 1,000 65 1,160 1,680 % with any housing problems 0 54 0 45.2 15.8 53 30.8 48.7 47.6 6. Total Households 189 2,070 179 2,438 380 1,820 104 2,304 4,742 % with any housing problems 55 78.7 50.3 74.8 38.2 67.9 52.9 62.3 68.7 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 24 N/A N/A N/A 0 24 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 10 N/A N/A N/A 0 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 0 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 28.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 28.6 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4 8 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 28 N/A N/A N/A 4 32 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 0 43.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 4 8 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 20 20 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 50 50 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 28 32 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 50 56.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Santa Paula city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 69 65 355 489 144 69 154 367 856 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 40 55 190 285 104 34 49 187 472 % with any housing problems 75 81.8 78.9 78.9 72.1 55.9 71.4 69 75 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 29 10 165 204 40 35 105 180 384 % with any housing problems 13.8 100 75.8 68.1 25 57.1 76.2 61.1 64.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 10 4 115 129 79 54 220 353 482 % with any housing problems 0 0 73.9 65.9 0 18.5 68.2 45.3 50.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 19 110 129 85 58 270 413 542 % with any housing problems N/A 21.1 40.9 38 0 32.8 20.4 17.9 22.7 6. Total Households 79 88 580 747 308 181 644 1,133 1,880 % with any housing problems 43 67 69.8 66.7 27.6 37.6 49.7 41.7 51.6 City of Simi Valley Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 1,830 78.0% 1,810 74.0% 3,535 76.5% 21,934 81.2% 29,109 Black or African American 12 0.5% 42 1.7% 68 1.5% 284 1.1% 406 American Indian or Alaska Native 10 0.4% 29 1.2% 18 0.4% 181 0.7% 238 Hispanic or Latino 363 15.5% 478 19.5% 655 14.2% 2,635 9.7% 4,131 Asian 125 5.3% 100 4.1% 195 4.2% 1,505 5.6% 1,925 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% ‐ 0.0% 24 0.1% 24 Other 5 0.2% (12) ‐0.5% 149 3.2% 464 1.7% 605 Total 100% per Income Category 2,345 100.0% 2,447 100.0% 4,620 100.0% 27,027 100.0% 36,439 Elderly 926 39.5% 869 35.5% 985 21.3% 2,119 7.8% 4,899 Disabled 773 33.0% 533 21.8% 733 15.9% 3,232 12.0% 5,272 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 500 550 305 1,355 1,090 900 295 2,285 3,640 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 340 250 205 795 460 410 165 1,035 1,830 % with any housing problems 52.9 90 65.9 67.9 68.5 85.4 57.6 73.4 71 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 160 300 100 560 630 490 130 1,250 1,810 % with any housing problems 59.4 85 75 75.9 44.4 89.8 84.6 66.4 69.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 100 745 340 1,185 795 1,215 340 2,350 3,535 % with any housing problems 25 75.2 77.9 71.7 37.1 83.1 77.9 66.8 68.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 134 2,295 1,105 3,534 1,730 14,575 2,095 18,400 21,934 % with any housing problems 3 19.2 18.1 18.2 15.9 21.5 29.4 21.8 21.3 6. Total Households 734 3,590 1,750 6,074 3,615 16,690 2,730 23,035 29,109 % with any housing problems 41.4 41.2 38.6 40.5 32.2 29.5 39.7 31.2 33.1 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 0 28 0 28 4 4 18 26 54 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 0404404812 % with any housing problems N/A 100 N/A 100 100 N/A 100 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 0 24 0 24 0 4 14 18 42 % with any housing problems N/A 83.3 N/A 83.3 N/A 100 71.4 77.8 81 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 35 4 39 4 25 0 29 68 % with any housing problems N/A 100 100 100 100 60 N/A 65.5 85.3 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 44 45 89 15 165 15 195 284 % with any housing problems N/A 9.1 0 4.5 0 36.4 0 30.8 22.5 6. Total Households 0 107 49 156 23 194 33 250 406 % with any housing problems N/A 58.9 8.2 42.9 34.8 40.7 42.4 40.4 41.4 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 69 355 44 468 59 284 30 373 841 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 30 150 14 194 35 104 30 169 363 % with any housing problems 50 90 71.4 82.5 71.4 96.2 100 91.7 86.8 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 39 205 30 274 24 180 0 204 478 % with any housing problems 89.7 82.9 100 85.8 16.7 100 N/A 90.2 87.7 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0 225 40 265 40 335 15 390 655 % with any housing problems N/A 73.3 62.5 71.7 50 83.6 100 80.8 77.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 15 425 85 525 100 1,840 170 2,110 2,635 % with any housing problems 0 42.4 23.5 38.1 25 36.7 41.2 36.5 36.8 6. Total Households 84 1,005 169 1,258 199 2,459 215 2,873 4,131 % with any housing problems 59.5 64.7 50.3 62.4 37.2 50.2 53.5 49.6 53.5 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 24 39 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 14 29 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 28.6 65.5 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 10 18 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 100 77.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 27 N/A N/A N/A 154 181 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 70.4 N/A N/A N/A 19.5 27.1 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 188 238 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 76 N/A N/A N/A 28.7 38.7 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 130 N/A N/A N/A 95 225 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A 35 125 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 66.7 N/A N/A N/A 71.4 68 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 40 N/A N/A N/A 60 100 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 58.3 75 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 70 N/A N/A N/A 125 195 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 84 71.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 250 N/A N/A N/A 1,255 1,505 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 24.7 25.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 450 N/A N/A N/A 1,475 1,925 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 46.7 N/A N/A N/A 32.2 35.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 4 24 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 100 58.3 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 4 24 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 100 58.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Simi Valley city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 124 120 315 559 204 174 369 747 1,306 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 100 80 170 350 104 104 215 423 773 % with any housing problems 65 68.8 76.5 71.4 81.7 76.9 81.4 80.4 76.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 24 40 145 209 100 70 154 324 533 % with any housing problems 16.7 75 72.4 66.5 35 28.6 64.3 47.5 55 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 19 10 155 184 110 114 325 549 733 % with any housing problems 21.1 0 80.6 70.1 36.4 29.8 70.8 55.4 59.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 29 4 425 458 159 340 2,275 2,774 3,232 % with any housing problems 0 0 15.3 14.2 11.9 20.6 25.9 24.5 23 6. Total Households 172 134 895 1,201 473 628 2,969 4,070 5,271 % with any housing problems 42.4 63.4 47.5 48.5 37.8 32.5 36.8 36.3 39.1 City of Thousand Oaks Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 2,135 80.1% 2,129 74.4% 3,825 79.0% 27,030 86.1% 35,119 Black or African American 20 0.8% 29 1.0% 33 0.7% 315 1.0% 397 American Indian or Alaska Native 20 0.8% 14 0.5% 15 0.3% 138 0.4% 187 Hispanic or Latino 350 13.1% 567 19.8% 730 15.1% 1,865 5.9% 3,512 Asian 89 3.3% 85 3.0% 155 3.2% 1,620 5.2% 1,949 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 12 0.0% 20 Other 50 1.9% 34 1.2% 79 1.6% 399 1.3% 561 Total 100% per Income Category 2,664 100.0% 2,862 100.0% 4,841 100.0% 31,379 100.0% 41,746 Elderly 1,095 41.1% 1,178 41.2% 1,642 33.9% 4,928 15.7% 8,843 Disabled 760 28.5% 691 24.1% 924 19.1% 3,220 10.3% 5,596 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 755 525 469 1,749 1,380 835 300 2,515 4,264 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 440 210 290 940 615 450 130 1,195 2,135 % with any housing problems 70.5 76.2 41.4 62.8 69.9 87.8 73.1 77 70.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 315 315 179 809 765 385 170 1,320 2,129 % with any housing problems 73 93.7 97.8 86.5 57.5 90.9 91.2 71.6 77.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 260 520 370 1,150 1,285 1,040 350 2,675 3,825 % with any housing problems 92.3 83.7 82.4 85.2 44 77.4 74.3 60.9 68.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI 510 2,595 1,745 4,850 4,095 15,585 2,500 22,180 27,030 % with any housing problems 31.4 20.6 14 19.4 18.6 22.4 29.8 22.5 22 6. Total Households 1,525 3,640 2,584 7,749 6,760 17,460 3,150 27,370 35,119 % with any housing problems 61.6 39.1 32.7 41.4 32.5 28.9 39.8 31 33.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 4 20 15 39 0 10 0 10 49 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 20 % with any housing problems N/A 100 N/A 100 N/A 100 N/A 100 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 4101529000029 % with any housing problems 100 100 100 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 4 4 10 18 0 15 0 15 33 % with any housing problems 100 100 0 44.4 N/A 100 N/A 100 69.7 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 85 35 120 15 135 45 195 315 % with any housing problems N/A 47.1 57.1 50 0 18.5 44.4 23.1 33.3 6. Total Households 8 109 60 177 15 160 45 220 397 % with any housing problems 100 58.7 58.3 60.5 0 31.3 44.4 31.8 44.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 14 554 50 618 50 200 49 299 917 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 10 210 35 255 10 65 20 95 350 % with any housing problems 0 100 71.4 92.2 100 100 100 100 94.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 4 344 15 363 40 135 29 204 567 % with any housing problems 0 98.8 100 97.8 75 100 86.2 93.1 96.1 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 10 375 35 420 75 215 20 310 730 % with any housing problems 100 82.7 42.9 79.8 46.7 90.7 50 77.4 78.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 25 405 100 530 100 1,130 105 1,335 1,865 % with any housing problems 0 43.2 20 36.8 20 35.8 19 33.3 34.3 6. Total Households 49 1,334 185 1,568 225 1,545 174 1,944 3,512 % with any housing problems 20.4 77.6 40.5 71.4 42.2 51.8 43.1 49.9 59.5 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A N/A 0 34 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 20 N/A N/A N/A 0 20 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 14 N/A N/A N/A 0 14 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 71.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 71.4 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 15 N/A N/A N/A 0 15 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 29 N/A N/A N/A 109 138 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 13.8 N/A N/A N/A 27.5 24.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 78 N/A N/A N/A 109 187 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 62.8 N/A N/A N/A 27.5 42.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 64 N/A N/A N/A 110 174 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A N/A 55 89 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 88.2 N/A N/A N/A 81.8 84.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A 55 85 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 81.8 88.2 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 105 155 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 80 N/A N/A N/A 76.2 77.4 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 320 N/A N/A N/A 1,300 1,620 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 23.4 N/A N/A N/A 21.9 22.2 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 434 N/A N/A N/A 1,515 1,949 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 40.3 N/A N/A N/A 30 32.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 4 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 8 12 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 50 33.3 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 12 20 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 66.7 60 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Thousand Oaks city, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 310 94 254 658 355 130 308 793 1,451 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 200 45 150 395 130 45 190 365 760 % with any housing problems 77.5 100 80 81 61.5 22.2 73.7 63 72.4 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 110 49 104 263 225 85 118 428 691 % with any housing problems 72.7 91.8 96.2 85.6 35.6 52.9 71.2 48.8 62.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 85 30 160 275 295 129 225 649 924 % with any housing problems 100 100 87.5 92.7 39 69 75.6 57.6 68.1 5. Household Income >80% MFI 119 48 390 557 455 373 1,835 2,663 3,220 % with any housing problems 71.4 29.2 28.2 37.5 17.6 23.9 24.8 23.4 25.9 6. Total Households 514 172 804 1,490 1,105 632 2,368 4,105 5,595 % with any housing problems 78.8 77.9 58.5 67.7 32.1 36.9 35.9 35 43.7 City of Ventura Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Total Income Income Income Upper Non‐Hispanic White 2,930 64.5% 3,045 69.9% 4,795 73.9% 18,935 81.8% 29,705 Black or African American 119 2.6% 104 2.4% 64 1.0% 219 0.9% 506 American Indian or Alaska Native 39 0.9% 10 0.2% 49 0.8% 74 0.3% 172 Hispanic or Latino 1,225 27.0% 1,001 23.0% 1,279 19.7% 2,770 12.0% 6,276 Asian 120 2.6% 69 1.6% 155 2.4% 620 2.7% 964 Pacific Islander ‐ 0.0% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 47 0.2% 55 Other 107 2.4% 125 2.9% 140 2.2% 474 2.0% 845 Total 100% per Income Category 4,540 100.0% 4,358 100.0% 6,486 100.0% 23,139 100.0% 38,523 Elderly 1,537 33.9% 1,689 38.8% 1,439 22.2% 3,896 16.8% 8,561 Disabled 1,424 31.4% 1,103 25.3% 1,175 18.1% 3,058 13.2% 6,761 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 1,075 1,055 1,205 3,335 1,735 455 450 2,640 5,975 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 575 570 685 1,830 705 180 215 1,100 2,930 % with any housing problems 67.8 87.7 75.9 77 63.1 75 58.1 64.1 72.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 500 485 520 1,505 1,030 275 235 1,540 3,045 % with any housing problems 76 81.4 83.7 80.4 42.7 83.6 66 53.6 66.8 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 330 1,140 1,000 2,470 985 950 390 2,325 4,795 % with any housing problems 68.2 60.1 49 56.7 21.8 71.1 74.4 50.8 53.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 585 2,640 1,990 5,215 3,080 8,750 1,890 13,720 18,935 % with any housing problems 19.7 11.2 9.3 11.4 9.3 18.8 27.8 17.9 16.1 6. Total Households 1,990 4,835 4,195 11,020 5,800 10,155 2,730 18,685 29,705 % with any housing problems 55.8 38.8 38.9 41.9 23.9 26.4 40.1 27.6 32.9 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 20 115 80 215 4 0 4 8 223 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 10 50 55 115 4 0 0 4 119 % with any housing problems 0 70 54.5 56.5 0 N/A N/A 0 54.6 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 10 65 25 100 0 0 4 4 104 % with any housing problems 100 69.2 60 70 N/A N/A 100 100 71.2 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 0301040200 42464 % with any housing problems N/A 33.3 100 50 0 N/A 100 16.7 37.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 0 65 49 114 0 90 15 105 219 % with any housing problems N/A 46.2 8.2 29.8 N/A 55.6 0 47.6 38.4 6. Total Households 20 210 139 369 24 90 23 137 506 % with any housing problems 50 57.1 42.4 51.2 0 55.6 34.8 42.3 48.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 145 1,350 179 1,674 149 375 28 552 2,226 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 105 710 100 915 120 170 20 310 1,225 % with any housing problems 52.4 92.3 80 86.3 66.7 88.2 100 80.6 84.9 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 40 640 79 759 29 205 8 242 1,001 % with any housing problems 62.5 86.7 94.9 86.3 13.8 73.2 50 65.3 81.2 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 19 620 185 824 80 355 20 455 1,279 % with any housing problems 78.9 65.3 48.6 61.9 43.8 73.2 50 67 63.7 5. Household Income >80% MFI 25 685 305 1,015 150 1,435 170 1,755 2,770 % with any housing problems 40 32.1 14.8 27.1 16.7 30 23.5 28.2 27.8 6. Total Households 189 2,655 669 3,513 379 2,165 218 2,762 6,275 % with any housing problems 55.6 69.1 43.3 63.5 38 45.7 33.9 43.7 54.8 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 24 N/A N/A N/A 25 49 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 24 N/A N/A N/A 15 39 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 83.3 N/A N/A N/A 100 89.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 10 10 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 19 N/A N/A N/A 30 49 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 78.9 N/A N/A N/A 50 61.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 34 N/A N/A N/A 40 74 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 11.8 N/A N/A N/A 25 18.9 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 77 N/A N/A N/A 95 172 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50.6 N/A N/A N/A 52.6 51.7 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 150 N/A N/A N/A 39 189 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 20 120 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 0 83.3 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 19 69 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 21.1 78.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 75 N/A N/A N/A 80 155 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 86.7 N/A N/A N/A 81.3 83.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 235 N/A N/A N/A 385 620 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 17 N/A N/A N/A 35.1 28.2 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 460 N/A N/A N/A 504 964 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 55.4 N/A N/A N/A 40.5 47.6 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 4 N/A N/A N/A 0 4 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A 39 47 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 35.9 29.8 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 16 N/A N/A N/A 39 55 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 50 N/A N/A N/A 35.9 40 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: San Buenaventura (Ventur, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 380 205 825 1,410 439 289 389 1,117 2,527 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 210 145 555 910 199 125 190 514 1,424 % with any housing problems 73.8 58.6 73 70.9 67.8 56 73.7 67.1 69.5 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 170 60 270 500 240 164 199 603 1,103 % with any housing problems 82.4 66.7 74.1 76 58.3 45.7 72.4 59.5 67 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 105 10 395 510 260 100 305 665 1,175 % with any housing problems 85.7 100 65.8 70.6 15.4 55 62.3 42.9 54.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI 159 80 570 809 550 269 1,430 2,249 3,058 % with any housing problems 24.5 12.5 19.3 19.7 15.5 5.2 22 18.4 18.7 6. Total Households 644 295 1,790 2,729 1,249 658 2,124 4,031 6,760 % with any housing problems 65.8 49.2 54.5 56.6 32 32.5 37.1 34.8 43.6 County of Ventura Extremely‐Low Very‐Low Low Moderate and Upper Total Income Income Income Income Non‐Hispanic White 13,530 54.1% 14,155 55.7% 23,400 61.1% 116,890 75.7% 167,975 Black or African American 659 2.6% 501 2.0% 770 2.0% 2,655 1.7% 4,585 American Indian or Alaska Native 180 0.7% 90 0.4% 160 0.4% 670 0.4% 1,100 Hispanic or Latino 9,130 36.5% 9,565 37.7% 11,775 30.8% 23,520 15.2% 53,991 Asian 940 3.8% 620 2.4% 1,320 3.4% 7,975 5.2% 10,855 Pacific Islander 28 0.1% 40 0.2% 70 0.2% 265 0.2% 403 Other 532 2.1% 429 1.7% 790 2.1% 2,521 1.6% 4,271 Total 100% per Income Category 24,999 100.0% 25,400 100.0% 38,285 100.0% 154,496 100.0% 243,180 Elderly 8,669 34.7% 7,746 30.5% 8,967 23.4% 22,212 14.4% 47,594 Disabled 7,025 28.1% 5,770 22.7% 7,450 19.5% 19,443 12.6% 39,689 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for White Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 4,365 4,760 3,520 12,645 8,795 4,155 2,090 15,040 27,685 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 2,660 2,160 2,015 6,835 3,795 1,840 1,060 6,695 13,530 % with any housing problems 68.8 81.7 67 72.3 65.9 82.1 66 70.4 71.4 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 1,705 2,600 1,505 5,810 5,000 2,315 1,030 8,345 14,155 % with any housing problems 71 81.9 88.4 80.4 43.1 85.3 73.3 58.5 67.5 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 1,140 4,900 2,895 8,935 6,575 5,980 1,910 14,465 23,400 % with any housing problems 62.7 63.3 55.8 60.8 30.2 74.2 70.9 53.8 56.5 5. Household Income >80% MFI 2,300 13,040 7,700 23,040 17,720 65,320 10,810 93,850 116,890 % with any housing problems 22 17.4 13 16.4 13.2 22.7 30.1 21.8 20.7 6. Total Households 7,805 22,700 14,115 44,620 33,090 75,455 14,810 123,355 167,975 % with any housing problems 54.6 40.8 37.5 42.2 27.1 30.2 41 30.6 33.7 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Black Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 109 530 250 889 169 69 33 271 1,160 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 80 210 170 460 155 40 4 199 659 % with any housing problems 50 83.3 82.4 77.2 71 100 100 77.4 77.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 29 320 80 429 14 29 29 72 501 % with any housing problems 86.2 71.9 75 73.4 28.6 86.2 86.2 75 73.7 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 15 345 135 495 70 175 30 275 770 % with any housing problems 100 46.4 33.3 44.4 42.9 82.9 100 74.5 55.2 5. Household Income >80% MFI 15 705 315 1,035 170 1,195 255 1,620 2,655 % with any housing problems 0 19.9 9.5 16.4 17.6 29.3 31.4 28.4 23.7 6. Total Households 139 1,580 700 2,419 409 1,439 318 2,166 4,585 % with any housing problems 57.6 44.6 39.3 43.8 42.5 38.9 43.7 40.3 42.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 1,100 11,205 1,005 13,310 1,250 3,845 290 5,385 18,695 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 795 5,420 545 6,760 825 1,385 160 2,370 9,130 % with any housing problems 65.4 92.9 72.5 88 71.5 87.4 90.6 82.1 86.5 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 305 5,785 460 6,550 425 2,460 130 3,015 9,565 % with any housing problems 62.3 89.3 84.8 87.7 43.5 89.4 73.1 82.3 86 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 140 5,215 660 6,015 685 4,865 210 5,760 11,775 % with any housing problems 39.3 76 51.5 72.5 38 81.1 66.7 75.4 73.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI 100 5,540 1,260 6,900 1,000 14,480 1,140 16,620 23,520 % with any housing problems 15 46.8 20.6 41.6 16.5 43.8 38.2 41.8 41.7 6. Total Households 1,340 21,960 2,925 26,225 2,935 23,190 1,640 27,765 53,990 % with any housing problems 58.2 76.3 47.4 72.2 40.9 59.1 49.7 56.6 64.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Native American Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 175 N/A N/A N/A 95 270 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 115 N/A N/A N/A 65 180 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 73.9 N/A N/A N/A 69.2 72.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A N/A 30 90 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 66.7 N/A N/A N/A 66.7 66.7 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 60 160 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A 66.7 46.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 150 N/A N/A N/A 520 670 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 26.7 N/A N/A N/A 20.2 21.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 425 N/A N/A N/A 675 1,100 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 47.1 N/A N/A N/A 31.1 37.3 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Asian Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 875 N/A N/A N/A 685 1,560 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 625 N/A N/A N/A 315 940 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 70.4 N/A N/A N/A 68.3 69.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 250 N/A N/A N/A 370 620 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 92 N/A N/A N/A 68.9 78.2 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 565 N/A N/A N/A 755 1,320 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 66.4 N/A N/A N/A 76.8 72.3 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 1,595 N/A N/A N/A 6,380 7,975 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 32 N/A N/A N/A 31 31.2 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 3,035 N/A N/A N/A 7,820 10,855 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 51.2 N/A N/A N/A 38.7 42.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Pacific Islander Non‐Hispanic Households

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Elderly Family All Total Elderly Family All Total Total 1 & 2 Households Other Renters 1 & 2 Households Other Owners Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 49 N/A N/A N/A 19 68 2. Household Income <=30% MFI N/A N/A N/A 24 N/A N/A N/A 4 28 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 83.3 N/A N/A N/A 100 85.7 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A 15 40 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A N/A 100 100 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A N/A 10 70 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 33.3 N/A N/A N/A 100 42.9 5. Household Income >80% MFI N/A N/A N/A 95 N/A N/A N/A 170 265 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 10.5 N/A N/A N/A 29.4 22.6 6. Total Households N/A N/A N/A 204 N/A N/A N/A 199 403 % with any housing problems N/A N/A N/A 36.8 N/A N/A N/A 39.7 38.2 SOCDS CHAS Data: Housing Problems Output for Mobility & Self Care Limitation

Name of Jurisdiction: Source of Data: Data Current as of: Ventura County, California CHAS Data Book 2000 Renters Owners Extra Elderly All Total Extra Elderly All Total Total Elderly 1 & 2 Other Renters Elderly 1 & 2 Other Owners Households 1 & 2 Member Households 1 & 2 Member Households Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Member Households Member Households Households Households (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 1. Household Income <=50% MFI 1,645 930 4,100 6,675 2,415 1,215 2,490 6,120 12,795 2. Household Income <=30% MFI 1,075 630 2,385 4,090 1,230 560 1,145 2,935 7,025 % with any housing problems 70.2 71.4 80.5 76.4 67.9 58.9 80.8 71.2 74.2 3. Household Income >30 to <=50% MFI 570 300 1,715 2,585 1,185 655 1,345 3,185 5,770 % with any housing problems 66.7 70 86 79.9 39.2 46.6 73.6 55.3 66.3 4. Household Income >50 to <=80% MFI 345 105 1,940 2,390 1,580 885 2,595 5,060 7,450 % with any housing problems 75.4 47.6 74.2 73.2 24.4 42.9 66.1 49 56.8 5. Household Income >80% MFI 445 310 3,075 3,830 2,580 2,123 10,910 15,613 19,443 % with any housing problems 39.3 12.9 30.9 30.4 10.9 19.7 29.7 25.2 26.2 6. Total Households 2,435 1,345 9,115 12,895 6,575 4,223 15,995 26,793 39,688 % with any housing problems 64.5 55.8 63.5 62.9 29.9 33.9 42.9 38.3 46.3